The World and Everything in It - May 24, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

An alien is convicted of driving under the influence. That gets him deported, but the law later changes and he wants a second chance.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat. We’ll talk about the growing divide between Americans willing to work and Americans not so willing.

Plus the WORLD History Book. Sixty years ago, President John F. Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, May 24th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

REICHARD: Time now for the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Republicans, Democrats still far apart on infrastructure compromise » The White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill are still trying to hammer out a compromise on a massive infrastructure bill.

But GOP Senator Susan Collins says the two sides are still very far apart.

COLLINS: There’s some fundamental difference here, and at the heart of the negotiations is defining the scope of the bill. What is infrastructure?

She said Republicans define infrastructure as things like roads and bridges, and even things like broadband internet. But she said Democrats are now calling social programs “infrastructure.”

The White House has come down on its asking price for President Biden’s proposal. The administration is now pushing a $1.7 trillion dollar plan, down from $2.3 trillion. Press Secretary Jen Psaki called that a compromise.

PSAKI: This proposal exhibits a willingness to come down in size, giving on some areas that are important to the president, otherwise they wouldn’t have been in the proposal, while also staying firm in areas that are most vital to rebuilding our infrastructure and industries of the future.

But Republicans say that price is still way too high and the scope of the plan is still far too wide. They’ve proposed an alternative plan priced at less than $600 billion.

The president’s team is holding to a soft Memorial Day deadline to determine whether a compromise is within reach.

It’s still unclear if moderate Senate Democrats would go along with pushing the bill through without any GOP votes using budget reconciliation as they did with the near $2-trillion-dollar American Rescue Plan in March.

Israel, Hamas ceasefire holding » The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas held through the weekend, following an 11-day conflict.

On Sunday, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, said Israel did what it had to do to defend itself. And he said the military tried to be as surgical as possible with its strikes while Hamas deliberately fired rockets from civilian sites.

REGEV: They were firing out of schools, they were firing out of built up areas, firing out of homes, out of mosques, even out of playgrounds. And we tried, as I said, to hit the terrorists and not to see innocent people caught up in the crossfire.

Israel carried out hundreds of air strikes against militant targets in Gaza, while Hamas and other militants fired thousands of rockets at civilian targets in israel.

More than 250 people reportedly died in the fighting.

The Biden administration says its support for Israel has not changed in the wake of the latest battle. But Secretary of State Tony Blinken reiterated on Sunday,

BLINKEN: President Biden has been very clear that he’s committed to a two-state solution. Look, ultimately, it is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, and of course the only way to give the Palestinians the state to which they are entitled.

He also said the United States will go ahead with a planned $700-million dollar arms sale to Israel though some in the Democratic Party oppose it.

COVID-19 cases fall to lowest level in 11 months » New coronavirus cases across the United States have tumbled to rates not seen in more than 11 months.

The seven-day average for new cases has dropped to about 26,000 per day. Cases have not been that low since last June. The average number of deaths over the last seven days also dropped to about 550. That’s also the lowest level in nearly a year.

The numbers continue to fall even as more states and cities continue to reopen. Texas was one of the first states to fully reopen for business. And Gov. Greg Abbott said Sunday that the reopening did not lead to the disastrous outbreak that some predicted.

ABBOTT: We continued to have a decline in deaths after we opened 100 percent until we reached a day with zero deaths. And hospitalizations continue to go down even more.

SOUND: PARADE

The city of Mobile, Ala., celebrated a return to normalcy over the weekend with a Mardi Gras style parade.

SOUND: PARADE

But health experts also cautioned that not enough Americans have been vaccinated to completely extinguish the virus, leaving the potential for new variants that could extend the pandemic.

Italian cable car plunges to the ground, killing at least 13 » A cable car taking visitors to a mountaintop in northern Italy plummeted to the ground Sunday, killing at least 13 people. The accident also sent two children to the hospital in serious condition.

It appears the cable snapped, sending the car careening to the ground.

The cable car system recently underwent renovations and was thought to be in good condition. Authorities plan a thorough investigation into the cause.

Twenty-one killed in China after severe weather stuck mountain race »

Meantime in China, 21 people running a mountain ultramarathon died in the northwestern part of the country after being caught in severe weather.

Hail, freezing rain and gale-force winds hit the high-altitude race.

Rescuers were able to confirm that about 150 others participating in the race were safe.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: an illegal immigrant seeks a second chance.

Plus, shooting for the moon.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning, May 24, 2021. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It and we’re so glad you’ve joined us today. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

Well, this month is dedicated to new donors, people who listen to the program but haven’t yet supported it financially.

If you have, thank you. The families who banded together and offered to triple match all first-time gifts offered to match a total of $40-thousand-dollars and so they’re hoping y’all use up all of that. We’ll just keep on going to the end of the month.

We’ve also heard from people who’ve already given in the past asking if their gifts would also be matched!

REICHARD: We like that idea very much, so we will be looking for a few families eager to provide a June match for our June Giving Drive. That’s the one where we’ll be turning to our regular supporters to fuel up the mission as we come to the end of our fiscal year and start drawing up our plans for the new fiscal year. So stay tuned!

EICHER: All right, it’s time for Legal Docket.

Last week, the commission to study whether, and if so, how to change the Supreme Court met in its first public meeting.

The commission has 36 members, and it’s considering possible changes to the court such as term limits for justices and increasing the number of justices beyond the current nine, an idea that in the past has been known as “court packing,” something not even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could accomplish.

The commission is accepting comments from the public by way of the commission website between now and August 15th.

REICHARD: Also last week the Supreme Court handed down four opinions, and we’ll run through them quickly.

Number one clarifies a decision from last year when the court ruled it’s unconstitutional in a criminal trial to convict without a unanimous jury verdict. This time, the question was whether that requirement applies retroactively to cases already concluded.

The case involves a man in prison who sued, making the argument that the jury in his trial was not unanimous, and so he should be retried. He’d already exhausted the appeals process in his case when the new rule came down.

But a majority of six justices ruled that the unanimous jury rule does not apply backwards in time, retroactively, to cases like his.

You can hear part of the reason why in this statement from Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrell during oral argument in December:

MURRILL: But there can be no doubt that declaring the Ramos rule retroactive unsettles thousands of cases that involve terrible crimes. Requiring new trials in long-final criminal cases would be impossible in some and particularly unfair to the victims of these crimes.

Dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan pointed out that if the right to a unanimous jury is fundamental, then no one should spend life in prison over one or two jurors’ opposition.

EICHER: Now for the second decision, a victory for big energy companies and possibly budget-conscious customers of them.

The City of Baltimore sued several energy companies—Chevron, BP, and Exxon—alleging they’d caused climate change by bringing fossil-fuel products to market. The city alleges that’s the cause of coastal flooding, poor health outcomes, and a host of other problems.

The 7-1 decision didn’t decide the merits. That is, it wasn’t about the possible effects of climate change or the efficacy of mitigation policies. It resolves only a technical, procedural review question about whether such cases belong in federal or state court. The decision allows energy companies to steer litigation into federal court.

That’ll affect several other lawsuits like it around the country.

REICHARD: The third decision is also highly technical. It held that insurers can challenge a certain IRS rule without first paying the penalty for non-compliance.

That decision was unanimous.

EICHER: The final ruling we’ll tell you about today was, too. All nine justices ruled in favor.

It says police may not use the so-called “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment to justify entering someone’s home without a warrant.

In this case, a husband and wife got into an argument that resulted in her calling the police and reporting that she was concerned her husband might take his own life.

Officers arrived, entered the home, and then seized firearms belonging to the husband. They didn’t bother with a warrant, believing the doctrine of “community caretaking” gave them all the authority they needed.

The unanimous court pointed out that exception applies to vehicle searches and seizures, not to homes.

To be clear, the ruling does allow law enforcement to assist someone inside a home who needs help, but that’s under a separate doctrine of law.

REICHARD: Now on to oral argument analysis. Just one today is all I have time for. The court heard this case in April. It’s an immigration case.

Back in 1990, the United States granted permanent resident status to a Mexican national, a man by the name of Rufugio Palomar-Santiago.

A year later, he faced a charge of felony DUI. That triggered the deportation process because the law at the time considered driving under the influence an aggravated felony.

After a court convicted him, the government deported him.

But then, the law changed.

The Supreme Court later ruled that a DUI isn’t enough to justify deportation in certain circumstances. And the appellate court in the jurisdiction where Palomar-Santiago once lived eased the rules of proof for people in his situation.

While that was going on in the courts, Palomar-Santiago decided to re-enter the United States illegally. Under the written law, unlawful reentry is a serious matter and carries a harsher penalty. But Palomar-Santiago is fighting that penalty by arguing his prior deportation order wasn’t valid, pointing to the fact that his original offense, driving under the influence, is no longer considered a deportable offense.

That’s his argument which the government doesn’t accept.

Erica Ross argued for the government. And let’s listen to a key exchange with Justice Clarence Thomas, trying to work it all out. Again, the justices are hearing oral arguments by conference call:

THOMAS: So in effect you’re saying that if he were considered now for deportation he would not be deported based upon the DUI?

ROSS: In a fresh proceeding today, putting to one side that respondent here obviously has an order of removal that has never been vacated, yes, an individual who was convicted of DUI tomorrow and served with an immigration or removal order the next day would not be removable under current law. That’s correct.

THOMAS: So if that’s true, why would you be pursuing this case if you would say today he would not be deported?

ROSS: So, Your Honor, I think Congress reasonably determined that someone who unlawfully reenters the United States, despite an extant removal order that he never challenged, has taken the law into his own hands and has shown a disrespect for the law and for the legal process that is subject to punishment. And to more serious punishment than simply an unlawful entry charge which, of course, Respondent concedes would be appropriate here.

Ross went on to argue that to hand a victory to this scofflaw would create a loophole for others just like him. She pointed to laws that provide a path for people who didn’t receive court review of a deportation order. This man chose not to do that.

His lawyer, Brad Garcia, essentially argued ignorance of the law is at play here. You’ll hear Garcia mention the initialism B-I-A, and when you do, just know that he’s referring to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

GARCIA: Administrative remedies were not available because no ordinary non-citizen could understand and formulate the complex legal arguments required to challenge BIA precedent…

His argument in other words: The path is just too complex for people.

Yet Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against that argument.

ROBERTS: There are a lot of areas where, you know, the door closes and you lose the right to go back and challenge prior determinations. You seem to be arguing that whenever there is some kind of change or clarification in the law, you do go back and reopen everything. Now there are avenues in this case, this sort of case, to do that. But your proposition seems to me to be limited to, you know, we now know this was wrong, so we have to go and unscramble the eggs.

GARCIA: Not exactly, Your Honor. I think it's important to keep in mind the context here, which is that the government is coming to court and looking to impose a new and further criminal punishment on the basis of an order that it knows is invalid.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed sympathetic to Palomar-Santiago in this comment to Ross, lawyer for the government:

SOTOMAYOR: You answered by saying that you don't see a constitutional issue here. But I do. You've given me a lot of potential mechanisms in which an alien might be able to get this order reversed, but I don't know that there's a legal opportunity to do that, meaning it all depends on a whole series of discretion.

To my ear, most of the justices seemed unsympathetic to Palomar-Santiago. The law is clear as to what the man needed to do to challenge his initial deportation order.

This is a case in which the Biden administration aligned with the Trump administration. Both hold precisely to the plain understanding of the text Congress actually wrote and what it means—a rare example of rule of law perhaps winning the day even when policy preferences clearly differ.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Most women in their ninth month of pregnancy feel quite ready to get on with it.

A burger joint in Minneapolis might be able to help!

The Suburban restaurant serves up what the owner calls “The Labor Inducer.” It’s a bacon burger with caramelized onion, Cajun remoulade, and spicy mustard all inside a pretzel bun.

Turns out, 31 women who ate that thing went into labor within 24 hours!

Now, there’s no proof spicy food induces labor, and this is really just all in good fun. Still, I think we can all agree that eating that would induce something.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us for our weekly conversation and commentary on the economy. David. Good morning.

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

EICHER: No big dominant theme this week. What big story stood out to you on the economy?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that economically, I think that there's a lot of attention right now on this infrastructure bill. And you could argue it's as much of a political story as it is an economic one.

But I still remain in the camp that they're not going to be able to get a bipartisan deal done. And then I'm just totally in the dark as to how they'd be able to force one through on a partisan basis. I, uh, there's enough problems getting to 50 votes are just within the Democrats. That is the whole thing politically is somewhat mysterious to me.

But that's I think the major categories of things happening right now. There's a lot of wait and see around the political. And then on the economic side, we we just absolutely, we've talked about it almost now, every week, continue to see better overall jobs data. But nothing moving on the one part that is still the biggest concern, which is people voluntarily choosing not to reenter the workforce, given the government supplemental benefit, you're up to 20 states now that are not wanting to participate in that federal program. So a lot of things playing out in real time, my friend.

EICHER: I’m glad you brought up jobs, and I’d like a little further reflection on that in a moment. But I want to stay on the big infrastructure bill here one more time. What’s the roadblock, as you see it? I see the Republicans have kind of drawn what they say is a red line—they're not going to support tax increases to pay for it? Is that the most serious dividing line or is it on the Democrat side that the president is going to have a hard time keeping his very thin majorities among Democrats together? What's the biggest factor, do you think?

BAHNSEN: Well, there, it's a bit of both. So if they could get to some agreement on what the definition of infrastructure is, and if they could get a few hundred billion up from the Republicans’ number and a few hundred billion down from the latest Democrat number, I think that that part could potentially be, uh, they could find agreement on what the infrastructure bill would look like.

I don't see a path to how they pay for it. And I could be wrong. But if both sides are, in fact, being earnest in their statements of their respective red lines, then I think that there isn't a way to pay for it. And then as you point out, if they were able to get some compromise on those two things, what they're going to be buying and how they're going to pay for it, I'm not totally convinced that by picking up some of the moderates and Republicans and independents, that they wouldn't lose some of the progressives within the Democratic coalition. So I think he's walking a very fine line. And you can't say it's a 0% chance. But if there is a path to getting this done, they're gonna have to thread quite a needle here.

EICHER: Quick turn to jobs. I should note we hit another post-pandemic low last week of new claims for unemployment benefits, so that’s a positive development. Yet, as you said a moment ago, that “biggest concern” of people voluntarily choosing not to go back into the workforce.

We’re up at the World Journalism Institute up in northwest Iowa, and I drove around Minnesota and South Dakota over the weekend. And have to say, I saw some incredible signs out front of businesses: immediate job openings up to 30 bucks an hour, 75-hundred dollar signing bonuses. Almost, “Hey, are you breathing? You’re qualified!” I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

But it reminded me of a thought-provoking column last week by Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wondering about the disappearance of the American work ethic.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I read his article and I think it was not that it was wrong. Instead, it misses what I would consider to be the point. Americans who work hard and work harder than the rest and have that kind of DNA strand that we talk about, they're working harder than ever. They're more driven than ever. They're more successful than ever. The meritocracy is alive and well in America. I see all that as a good thing.

But we have to understand that it is dividing at a higher level. And so the cultural disconnections, the social disconnections, what the sociologist Charles Murray wrote about, in 2013, the “coming apart.”

You do not have a American populace no longer interested in mobility and aspiration. You have a part of the population more interested in it than ever, and a part of the population less interested in it than ever. But the idea of America being a place where people want to work hard, it's a tale of two cities.

EICHER: Not to oversimplify, but can you quantify how much of this is one-time, COVID related? And how much of this do you think has become kind of systemic? In other words, this divide between the ambition haves and the ambition have nots. Will we point to that black-swan event, the pandemic? Or did it just take a wrong-direction trend and just make it worse? What do you think?

BAHNSEN: Oh, yeah, that's a great question. I believe my answer to your question is the same as almost everything I can describe out of COVID. None of it is a paradigm shift from COVID. All of it is more or less, an exacerbation or acceleration of trends that were in place pre-COVID. Some of them have picked up steam through the pandemic and the policy response to the pandemic. But none of them are really disruptions. Most of them, I think, are continuations of trends that are already in place that just might have a little bit more octane on them now. And so I think that you have a negative feedback loop.

It's something I talk about in economics all the time, and I talked about it in investment finance, as well. Most of the things we could ever discuss in the field of economics and in the field of finance, have a characteristic that is feedback-loop oriented, what we would call self-reinforcing. The question becomes whether or not you're creating a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle.

But I think that the negative feedback loop that we've created is that you have a certain problem, and we can all debate about the different causes, but then you treat it with something that guarantees more of the problem. And you get into this kind of rinse and repeat mode. And I think ultimately, the dependency mentality, transfer payments, making people the recipients of other people's work and productivity, what you've done is not only a grave iniquity in and of itself, but you've created the need for more of the same iniquity.

And and I don't believe it will be fixed governmentally, I think it will only be fixed bottom up. And I'd love for churches and families and communities to play a role in that. But this is a generational battle. We do not have people that are wanting a government check right now and not going back to work just because the government's giving a check. The government's giving the check, because there are people that will take it.

And granted there was a real life emergency pandemic a year ago where the government shut down all these businesses. But I'm referring right now to something that is post pandemic, that is not about addressing the government-created problem of walk downs, and how to give some emergency funding to those who are victims of it.

Now we're talking about making people victims permanently, and their willful participation in this process. This is the negative feedback loop I speak to, and this is one of the few forums I'm on where I can tell you: it is cultural, it is economic, but it is above all else spiritual.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, financial analyst and adviser. He writes at DividendCafe.com, and you can sign up to have his newsletter delivered to your email if you’re interested. Thanks again. I hope you have a terrific week. Talk soon.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, May 24th. 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. Next up: The WORLD History Book. Today, a series of milestones from the 20th Century. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

MUSIC: BLOWING IN THE WIND BY BOB DYLAN

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Robert Allen Zimmerman was born May 24, 1941. “Who?” you might ask. In college, Zimmerman adopted a stage name: Bob Dylan. He celebrates his 80th birthday today.

In addition to his musical chops, the Minnesota-born Dylan became an artist, writer, producer, and Nobel Prize laureate. He dropped out of college and moved to the Big Apple, where his lyrical skill began to shine. He wrote “Blowing in the Wind” in just 10 minutes. And his songs showed a deep complexity that caused the New York folk scene to turn its gaze to the up-and-coming songwriter.

He told CBS’s 60 Minutes in 2004 that his creativity came from a “wellspring” that surprised even him.

DYLAN: Try to sit down and write something like that. There’s a magic to that. And it’s not a Sigfried and Roy kind of magic. It’s a different kind of penetrating magic.

A near-fatal motorcycle accident in 1966 led to a long recovery, then a shift in his music, from folk to rock. Dylan reinvented himself over the years, musically and religiously. He grew up Jewish, then professed a conversion to evangelical Christianity in 1979, then back to Judaism again.

Over the course of his 60-year career, he’s been named to many halls of fame and received many awards—including a Presidential Medal of Freedom, 10 Grammys, a Golden Globe, and an Academy Award.

MUSIC: FOREVER YOUNG BY BOB DYLAN

Moving now from songs to space. It’s been 60 years since U.S. President John F. Kennedy appeared before a special session of Congress to announce his plan to put a “man on the moon” before the decade’s end.

KENNEDY: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

At the onset of JFK’s presidency in January 1961, America was losing the Space Race with the Soviet Union. The USSR had already put the first satellite and the first man into space. Kennedy asked Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson to work with NASA to zero in on a victory the U.S. could achieve. Space station? Manned lunar orbit? NASA thought the Soviets had a lock on those, too. So putting a man on the moon was the clear winner. At the same time, though, some lawmakers and citizens fretted about the cost of a prospective lunar mission compared to its benefits. The project came with an estimated price tag of $22 billion. So, Kennedy made his case.

KENNEDY: No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

After Kennedy’s address to Congress, a Gallup poll showed 56 percent of Americans opposed putting a man on the moon. But, of course, Kennedy realized his goal posthumously, in July 1969. That’s when the Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin successfully set foot on the moon.

ARMSTRONG: That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

MUSIC: FLY ME TO THE MOON BY FRANK SINATRA

And we’ll cap off today’s entries on a high note—ascending the highest peak. Twenty years ago, on May 25, 2001, Erik Weihenmayer became the first blind person to reach the summit of Mount Everest.

He told KUSA-TV overcoming obstacles is part of the human experience.

WEIHENMAYER: That’s what connects us. It’s not just triumphs, we’re connected by the things that shatter us, and we have to figure out how to rebuild.

He told Oprah he lost his eyesight to a rare degenerative disease when he was 13.

WEIHENMAYER: I’d been fighting blindness and I hated blindness and it made me feel so helpless, I didn’t know what to think, things were happening so fast.

He took out his frustrations on his high school van driver, insisting he could be on the school bus with the sighted kids. The driver pulled over and told Weihenmayer to get out. He then threw a basketball at the boy, hitting him in the head.

WEIHENMAYER: He said, “Erik, you can’t catch a basketball, you’re blind.” And I thought, “That’s harsh.” Then he said, “This time, Erik, I want you to put your hands out, I’m gonna tell you when it’s coming.” And I put my hands out, he threw the ball, and I caught it.

That illustration taught him it’s okay—healthy, even—to rely on others for help and guidance.

WEIHENMAYER: And then some things, like Mount Everest, no matter how independent you are, you can’t climb it alone. You have to rely on each other and trust each other and communicate with each other.

After Everest, Weihenmayer achieved something few in the world have, sighted or not: Climbing all of the Seven Summits, including Denali and Kilimanjaro. But he doesn’t limit his adventures to climbing. In 2014, Weihenmayer and blinded Navy vet Lonnie Bedwell kayaked the entire 277-miles of the Grand Canyon, one of the world’s most challenging whitewaters.

MUSIC: ON TOP OF THE WORLD BY IMAGINE DRAGONS

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: political protests. We’ll take you to two cities plagued by violence last summer. Community members are bracing for more unrest in the coming months.

And, herd immunity. We’ll find out how natural immunity is playing into the effort to beat back COVID-19.

That and more tomorrow.

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 says that "an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, and able to teach." (1 Timothy 3:2)

Go now in grace and peace.

I’m Nick Eicher.

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.