The World and Everything in It: November 17, 2025

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.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Good morning!

Federal law protects the religious freedom of inmates.

But a Rastafarian prisoner says the promise meant nothing when guards strapped him down and cut his dreads.

Now he’s looking for compensation.

BARRETT: Look, the facts of this case are egregious.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, economist David Bahnsen standing by.

And later the WORLD History Book. How one man claimed to find the so-called “missing link” proving human evolution.

WEINER: It was an ape man with a thick boned skull and ape like jaw.

ROUGH: It’s Monday, November 17th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

ROUGH: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Healthcare debate » On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats are once again debating healthcare.

That after a small number of Democrats crossed the aisle to help pass a funding bill last week to end the longest-ever government shutdown. Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine was one of them.

KAINE:  I was at the table with the Republican senators and I knew if we wanted to get to the healthcare discussion, we had to open up government. And that was a vantage point I had that a lot of folks who were lobbying, criticism didn't.

And the discussion has begun anew, but the two sides sharply disagree on the path forward.

Democrats are pushing for the extension of Obamacare subsidies. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen:

SHAHEEN: Right now we need to address what people are facing in terms of those high rate increases because of the threat that these premium tax credits are gonna end.

But Republicans say it’s time to take another look at alternatives to pouring more money into Obamacare.

Sen. John Barrasso:

BARRASSO: I’m a doctor. I practiced medicine in Wyoming for 24 years, and I've always wanted people to get the care they need from a doctor that they choose at a price they can afford, and Obamacare basically destroyed that possibility.

GOP Senator Bill Cassidy, also a physician, is suggesting redirecting subsidies into flexible spending accounts.

But Democrats argue there is not enough time to implement that proposal with the subsidies set to expire at the end of this year.

Trump: Admin could hold talks with Maduro » President Trump says his administration could soon open talks with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

That comes as the United States has continued a military buildup in the Caribbean near Venezuela.

That’s part of a counter-cartel operation that many see as a pressure campaign against the Maduro regime.

Trump says Maduro is supporting and fueling drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.

TRUMP:  We may be having some discussions with Maduro and we'll see how that turns out. Mr. President, they would like Mr. President, they would like to talk.

The US military has recently carried out a series of lethal strikes on boats that it says were trafficking illicit drugs across the Caribbean and Pacific, many of them from Venezuela. And President Trump is reportedly considering targeted air strikes against cartel targets within Venezuela, and he has approved CIA operations there.

Kash Patel on opioid crisis » FBI Director Kash Patel says the bureau is determined to put an end to the fentanyl crisis. And he says he believes the Trump administration is making great strides in curbing the flow of fentanyl precursors across the globe and keeping the deadly synthetic drug out of the US.

PATEL: This opioid crisis is going to be turned off. Americans are no longer gonna lose their life to manufactured synthesis Opioids like fentanyl.

Patel recently met with officials in Beijing about the fentanyl problem. That marked the first time an FBI director has visited China in more than a decade.

Beijing has vowed to adopt tighter controls on the export of certain fentanyl precursor chemicals.

Ukraine: Finland on ceasefire / prisoner exchanges / Russian attacks » Ukraine is working to resume prisoner exchanges with Russia that could bring home 1,200 Ukrainian prisoners.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his government is engaged in negotiations mediated by Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

At the same time Russian drone and missile strikes damaged energy infrastructure in Ukraine’s Odesa region overnight Saturday into Sunday.

Meanwhile, the president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, says a ceasefire in ukraine is unlikely before the spring.

STUBB: I’m not very optimistic about achieving a ceasefire or the beginning of peace negotiations, at least this year. I mean, perhaps if we get something going by February, March, that would be good.

And despite a corruption scandal in Kyiv, he’s urging European allies to hold the line in support of Ukraine.

Nigeria » Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say they’re taking steps to bolster President Trump’s push to protect persecuted Christians in Nigeria.

Congressman Riley Moore has introduced a House resolution voicing support for the Trump administration’s decision to designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern.

And it urges the use of all “diplomatic, economic, and security” tools to pressure Nigeria to better protect Christians. Moore said Sunday:

MOORE:  Tragedy that's going on there, how horrific this is, uh, these killings of these Christians, our brothers and sisters in Christ. And, but we, and as President Trump has stated, we're gonna stop this.

The Trump administration has threatened to halt aid, issue sanctions and potentially even take military action if Nigerian leaders don’t step up protections for Christians.

A human rights group reports that from January through August of this year, militants killed or kidnapped roughly 15,000 Christians.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Legal Docket, Moneybeat with David Bahnsen and the WORLD History Book.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday, the 17th of November. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough. Time now for Legal Docket.

Today, Landor versus Louisiana, a religious freedom case about drugs, dreadlocks, and an inmate named Damon.

EICHER: Bob Marley and the Wailers provided the most popular soundtrack for the religion Damon claims: Rastafarianism, a relatively new religious movement from the 1930s.

It borrows some Old Testament ideas—including the Nazarite vow, that’s key.

But it considers former Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie divine, and mixes Biblical themes with cultural, political, and liberationist ideas.

MARLEY: And now-a you see the light / you stand up for your right (Jah!) / Get up, stand up (Jah! Jah!) / Stand up for your right (Oh-hoo!) / Get up, stand up (Get up, stand up) / Don’t give up the fight (Life is your right) / Get up, stand up (So we can’t give up the fight) / Stand up for your right.

ROUGH: Damon Landor asserts his right was to wear knee-length dreadlocks, while serving a five-month prison sentence on a drug-possession charge.

Wayne Rose is a lecturer at Morgan State University, and once worked as a Rastafari chaplain in the New York state prison system.

ROSE: Very importantly to the Rastafari identity is the wearing of dreadlocks.

EICHER: State prison officials in Louisiana demanded Landor comply with prison grooming standards. Landor even gave the guard a copy of a court opinion that expressly said shaving the dreadlocks of a practicing Rastafari is not permitted.

But the guard threw the court document in the trash. Eventually, they’d strap him down and shear the locks that took 20 years to grow.

ROSE: So when someone violates the expression of your locks, link to the divine, then they have eliminated, if you will, a vow of reverence to the divine, a spiritual vow.

He refers to the Nazirite vow from Numbers, Chapter 6 in the Old Testament, a vow taken to express devotion to God. The key component here is letting the locks of your hair grow long.

ROUGH: At this point, that inquiry no longer matters.

All parties agree that what prison officials did is unlawful, per federal statute. Landor’s rights are clearly spelled out in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, known by the odd acronym RLUIPA.

What’s at issue now is Landor’s remedy. His rights were violated, so what do the government and possibly government officials owe him?

EICHER: On Legal Docket, we talk a lot about the free exercise of religion, a fundamental right grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But we don’t often talk about RLUIPA.

Nor do we talk about what prompted Congress to approve it: A 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division versus Smith. Ever since that decision, it’s been harder to bring a straightforward First Amendment free exercise claim.

ROUGH: The reason is, Smith held that a neutral law that’s generally applicable is okay so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In this case, a prison’s grooming policy that says all incoming inmates get a haircut, because hair is an easy place to hide contraband.

EICHER: But Congress wanted greater protections for religious liberty. So as pushback to the Smith case, it enacted not only RLUIPA, but its forerunne,… the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA.

ROUGH: Both statutes say that if a law restricts religious freedom, it is subject to strict scrutiny. The government must have a compelling interest and must use the least restrictive means possible to carry out its goal. For example, searching an inmate’s hair instead of shaving an inmate’s hair.

EICHER: But because the government chose to shave, Landor chose to sue. Where he’s run into trouble and why he’s at the Supreme Court is whether RLUIPA allows the claim he’s trying to bring. Getting his dreads back will take decades, and he’s looking for a more instant remedy, like money damages.

ROUGH: And that’s the question in this case: Does the statute, RLUIPA, allow Landor to do that? Does it allow a damages remedy?

But the bad news for Landor is that every circuit court that has considered the question has held money damages are not available under RLUIPA.

Justice Neil Gorsuch brought that up with Landor’s attorney, Zachary Tripp.

GORSUCH: As I understand it, the circuits are unanimously against you. And have been for many, many years.

ZACHARY TRIPP: That’s correct.

EICHER: Correct, but… the good news for Landor? Eighteen days before guards cut Landor’s hair, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a RFRA case. And in that case, the court did allow money damages against government officials. The wording in those two sister statutes is precisely the same. Landor’s attorney:

TRIPP: And RLUIPA uses identical language. They’re like twins separated at birth. They clearly mean the same thing.

Both statutes say that a plaintiff is entitled to bring a lawsuit against government officials for “appropriate relief.” So, Landor’s side argued, because the Supreme Court held “appropriate relief” includes money in the RFRA case, it should also be allowed in the RLUIPA case.

ROUGH: But here’s the problem: The congressional power to enact these sister statutes came from different places in the Constitution.

To enact RFRA, Congress exercised its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment. But to enact RLUIPA, Congress exercised its powers under the spending clause.

EICHER: And the spending clause operates like a contract. The federal government gives money to the state and, in exchange, the state agrees to comply with certain conditions. In other words, it’s a deal!

ROUGH: And the deal must be clear. Not only the condition to comply with RLUIPA, but also the condition that non-compliance could result in money damages. It’s known in the law as the clear statement rule.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh thought the term “appropriate relief” sounded a bit too murky.

KAVANAUGH: The hard part, as I see it, for your case, for me, is that you need a clear statement, and “appropriate relief” is not as clear as it could be in encompassing damages. So how do you deal with that?

EICHER: But Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson sided with Landor.

JACKSON: We do have both notice and consent under these circumstances given that these individuals as third parties are not people in the world, they are employees of the recipient of federal funds. And so to the extent that the recipient of federal funds has made clear with the federal government that it’s going to require its employees to comply with RLUIPA and not violate people’s rights, then, when those employees decide, chose, consent to accept a job with that employer, they are thereby consenting to follow those agreements.

In other words, they implicitly agreed to the conditions by taking the job, they’re acting under the color of state law, and they indirectly received funds as paid employees.

BARRETT: Look, the facts of this case are egregious.

ROUGH: Justice Amy Coney Barrett was also sympathetic to Landor.

She even asked what happened to the guards, putting the question to Louisiana’s solicitor general Benjamin Aguinaga.

BARRETT: And then just out of curiosity, obviously this is beyond the record, I mean, was there disciplinary action here? Do you know?

BENJAMIN AGUIÑAGA: I can say that the warden himself is no longer associated with the Department of Corrections.

But Justice Barrett seemed concerned about where the logic would lead if damages were allowed. How would it play out in other circumstances? She worried it might stretch too far.

The state agreed, saying the correct solution is Congress.

BARRETT: To pass new legislation and amend RLUIPA to allow for damages against the states. And then the states can decide, each state for itself, whether it accepts that express condition. The answer is across the street, not here.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

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

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

EICHER: Well, David, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the six-week government shutdown clearly pinched the economy—missed paychecks, delayed SNAP benefits, big drops in D.C. restaurant traffic. But the Journal, in its story, says the real challenge now is the data fog that this all creates. Some of the weakness might just be noise. Some of it might reflect something else, and disentangling the two might take some time.

So David, when you think about and look at the impact of the shutdown—and maybe even with the prospect of another one coming at the end of January when this temporary spending bill expires—do you see mostly temporary disruption, or does this, in your mind, expose a softer economy underneath?

BAHNSEN: I don’t even agree with the Journal about temporary disruption. I do know what they mean on a micro basis. There’s no question somebody who doesn’t get a paycheck, they were disrupted. I don’t want to minimize the disruption to a human being or a family.

But because the context of the question is macroeconomic, this was the longest shutdown in history, and people are going to have a very hard time finding any data that actually indicates it moving any particular needle macroeconomically.

And that other point they make about the delay of reporting is somewhat ironic, because what we had been hearing before the shutdown was a lot of people from the Trump administration saying you can’t trust that data anyways, and then other people from the left saying you can’t trust the Trump administration with the data anyways. And now people saying, what are we going to do? We don’t have this data.

But we have continued to get initial claims from states and the private-sector numbers. But I don’t think that any of us have been sitting around wondering, has the job market gotten way worse than we know, or has it gotten way better than we know?

I think most of us that spend a lot of time inside labor analytics, as I do, have a pretty clear picture of where things are, and it’s not good.

EICHER: Also in that Wall Street Journal story—and I hate to keep coming back to it now that we’ve kind of undone it—but it does quote the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, saying the shutdown could shave a point to a point and a half off of fourth-quarter GDP. Does that not seem credible to you at all?

BAHNSEN: Now I really don’t think it matters. I’m not one who always wants to be critical of CBO, but they don’t have a way to fully know that.

And when they say a quarter, you know that they would mean that annualized. So it would mean a quarter of a point in one quarter. And so even then it would be what they would be saying it is as a result of certain government checks that didn’t get out the door, that are in the government-expenditure side of GDP.

And all that would mean is that there were checks that didn’t get mailed one month that did get mailed the next. I have a hard time understanding it, though, because of the timing of this that largely was in October into the middle of November shutdown—how it would impact a quarter’s data when anything that didn’t get paid in the first half of the quarter is going to get paid in the second half of the quarter.

So I just am skeptical that that will end up being accurate.

EICHER: Well, David, there’s another story. Again, I hesitate to quote the Journal anymore this morning, but—

BAHNSEN: Well, the Journal is the best newspaper we have out there, so I’m not trying to be critical of the Journal.

EICHER: But this story in the Journal, I think, pairs really well with your Dividend Café this week. It lays out six charts showing what they call the collision between AI hype and AI reality: record capital spending, a gold rush of data-center plans, but also hard physical limits like power shortages, transformers in short supply, permitting delays, and so on.

Now, David, you’ve been warning—and you warn in your current Dividend Café—this is a bubble. Maybe a productive bubble, but still a bubble. So talk a little bit about the difference between a productive bubble and a scarcity bubble, and where this current AI expenditure fits

BAHNSEN: Well, you know, because I manage investments for a living and am writing to investors in my weekly DividendCafe.com, I wanted that distinction to be clear. Because what I suggest happens when a productive bubble funded by equity goes awry is that individual investors lose money, and that’s bad for individual investors and not bad for others.

But to the extent that the bubble was excessive valuation of something that is productive, then what you end up with is a still-productive thing that is now in different hands—some investors lost a lot of money, and other investors got to come in at a better time and a better price with a productive asset.

And right now, that’s what I would be labeling the AI moment as: largely equity-funded, and it’s certainly a productive asset.

But it’s funny that when the Journal’s charts and our conversation right now, we’re talking about the kind of positive side of, oh, there is record money being spent on the data centers. Is that really a positive? That’s the question I’m asking.

There isn’t any question that companies like Nvidia and Broadcom are receiving real money from companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta that are spending grown-up money—hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. The question is whether or not what they’re spending it on is productive, valuable, and whether or not the amount they’re spending will be rational.

You could very well end up with a profitable use for AI that doesn’t match the amount of money that had to be spent on it. And so there’s a lot of complexity to this, Nick, but that, I think, is the fundamental argument when a bunch of companies are increasing the amount they’re having to spend to keep up with something that right now has no profits at all, and that the measurement of future profits is totally speculative.

And if, in the end, this goes out like the internet, that’ll be a great thing for society. We all use the internet every day. You and I are recording using the internet right now. This podcast exists because of the internet. It’s changed a lot of lives over 25 years.

But 25 years ago, a bunch of people overpaid for Pets.com and lost all their money. That was sad for them, but it didn’t blow up the world. Some people made a big mistake, and they moved on.

I want this to be like that—where risk-takers get profits and rewards, but we don’t end up going into a debt-fueled bubble, and we don’t end up asking the government to get super involved in something that I think ultimately will make it worse and more systemic.

EICHER: You know, I did find it interesting the comment that you made—if I’m quoting accurately—that it’s very similar to what happened with the tech bubble early on, the early internet. It’s not as though that information isn’t available. You can read about it.

BAHSNEN: Well, reading, requires reading.

EICHER: AI can tell you about the tech bubble!

BAHNSEN: Yeah, that’s true. There’s two things. There aren’t a lot of people that are doing the reading and the historical analysis, but that’s at least doable. But what isn’t doable is managing money now with the experiential lessons of having gone through it before.

There’s just something about the respect for risk and the humility that comes from having gone through certain asset bubbles that burst. So I lived through the productive bubble of the internet bursting and the scarcity bubble of excessive housing in 2005–06–07 bursting, and those things gave me a lesson that I couldn’t have gotten out of a book.

And I think that there are plenty of people professionally managing money now that were managing money in 1999. I’m not that old, but the bulk of people that I meet and talk to that are most enthusiastic about this AI moment—they have less than 25 years’ experience, which means they weren’t there when Pets.com took over all the Super Bowl commercials.

EICHER: Yeah, you’re not that old, but you were born in your 30s, it seems like.

BAHNSEN: Well, I’ll take that as a compliment.

EICHER: It’s meant that way.

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

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Today is Monday, November 17th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, how two discoveries rocked the scientific community.

Here’s WORLD’s Emma Eicher.

EMMA EICHER: In 1908, archaeologist Charles Dawson is walking down a gravel road on his farm when he sees some brown shards sticking out of the pebbles. They look like fragments of a fossilized coconut and it takes Dawson four years to find and assemble what looks like an ancient human skull.

JOSEPH WEINER: It was an ape man of a unique kind, with a rather thick boned skull and a rather ape-like jaw.

This audio is from a 1980 lecture about the discovery at the Geological Society of London. Joseph Weiner was a professor of human biology at Oxford University.

WEINER: Charles Dawson wrote to his old friend at the British Museum to say that he had come across a remarkable new fossil.

In the early 20th century evolutionary theory is gaining a foothold in Europe and the United States. And there’s a hunger in the scientific community to find evidence to support it.

WEINER: At that time, we have various specimens of Neanderthal man were known. The feeling was that early man had not yet been discovered. The real missing link had not yet appeared.

Dawson is sure that his discovery is the missing link, proving that humans evolved from apes. So in the winter of 1912, he reveals it to the world in a presentation at the Geological Society of London.

But scientists are skeptical.

WEINER: There was a great argument when all this was shown, because some of the people there, some of the anatomists, found it difficult to believe—at that time—that the jaw, which looked rather ape-like, really belonged to the bits of the skull which looked much more modern, much more human.

Still, the appetite for evidence of evolution wins out. The ape-slash-human skull becomes known as the Piltdown Man, named for where he was dug up.

In 1915, Dawson manages to find another Piltdown jawbone in the same gravel area. He dies a year later, but interest in his findings continue. Other archaeologists carry out excavations in the same place. But they don’t find any other fossils. And as time goes on, researchers are unsuccessful in verifying the Piltdown Man’s authenticity.

In the 1950s, Professor Weiner and a few colleagues finally decide to dig into the mystery. With a little more investigation, the towering success of the Piltdown Man crumbles to the ground.

WEINER: So I began to think, well, there is something rather odd about this whole business …

Because it’s not real. It’s all a very carefully crafted hoax.

WEINER: I was driven to the conclusion that the only way they could have come together was if somebody deliberately put the things together.

Weiner discovers that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man is just an orangutan mandible. The teeth belong to a chimpanzee. And the human skull is only about 600 years old. Dawson used dental putty to put it all together, and artificially colored the skull to make it look old.

According to Weiner and his team, the whole scheme was probably Dawson’s bid for power and influence.

WEINER: I have very little doubt in my own mind that he had all the necessary ability and experience and interest for him to conceive of this astonishing forgery … But he was really very ambitious.

So the Earliest Englishman was not so early after all.

The Piltdown Man may be one of the most effective hoaxes in scientific history. But men like Dawson have been deceiving the public in all sorts of ways for years and Dawson may have taken a leaf out of the book of another trickster named George Hull.

Hull also wanted to find a so-called “missing link” but this time for scripture.

This audio is from Eyewitness News.

NEWS: On October 16th, 1869, a ten foot tall petrified man was found buried in the ground on a farm in Cardiff, New York.

Hull paid for sculptors to carve a 3,000 pound giant out of gypsum, a light-colored type of mineral. He was inspired by the Genesis account of Nephilim, the “giants of the earth.” He himself was an atheist, but he was pretty sure that Bible believers wouldn’t question the authenticity of the statue.

He buried the giant on a farm, where unsuspecting workers would eventually dig it up.

Michael Tamburrino manages the museum where the Cardiff giant is now displayed.

NEWS: It didn’t just fool the most religious Americans that it was intended to fool. It also fooled scientists, archaeologists, because it is so detailed. He even went through and created pores on its skin with hammers, and poured acid over his skin to make it look like it was older than it actually was.

American showman P.T. Barnum offered to pay for the petrified man for his circus, but Hull was still cashing in on his creation.

NEWS: People came from all over the country, all over the Northeast to see this. He charged admission of 50 cents, he pitched a big tent, he sold them food. He even had his own taxi service, he was running people from the train station to his own farm, paying them to get there. So he was making quite a lot of money from this.

The giant inspired copycats, and about half a dozen petrified Nephilim cropped up around the country. Barnum even made his own statue to show off. But eventually, the jig was up. In early 1870, newspapers finagled the truth out of the sculptors who had created Hull’s original giant.

Still, Hull made about $20,000 dollars from the hoax. And in today’s world, fraudsters continue to make money this way. Of course, there aren’t many fake giants or fossils, instead it’s internet disinformation, clickbait and scam calls.

Carolyn Schindler is a member of the Geological Society of London, and she says you can never be too careful.

ORIGINS: It’s an enormous object lesson for people today not to be too credulous, to examine the evidence, not just to see what you want to see. If something is too good to be true, it probably is.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Tomorrow: Many states have safe-haven laws and judgment-free drop-zones, but are they successfully protecting babies? We have a report. And, efforts to fight off an invasive insect that’s crippling vineyards across the East Coast. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Jenny Rough.

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

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” —Galatians 3:28

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.