Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

The World and Everything in It - November 22, 2021

WORLD Radio - The World and Everything in It - November 22, 2021

On Legal Docket, a Supreme Court challenge to the Second Amendment; on the Monday Moneybeat, the latest economic news; and on History Book, significant events from the past. Plus: the Monday morning news.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The right to self-defense outside the home is on the line for citizens in New York and a handful of other states.

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

Also the Monday Moneybeat: we’ll talk public policy and jobs with economist David Bahnsen.

Plus the WORLD History Book. 50 years ago this week a skyjacking that remains unsolved.

REICHARD: It’s Monday November 22nd. 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: Now for the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: U.S. missionaries say 2 of 17 abductees freed in Haiti » Two of the 17 members of a missionary group kidnapped by a gang in Haiti have been freed. That according to their Ohio-based church organization.

They are said to be safe, “in good spirits and being cared for.”

Christian Aid Ministries said at this time, it cannot give the names of those released, why they were freed or other information.

The 400 Mawozo gang kidnapped the missionaries on Oct. 16th and demanded millions of dollars in ransom for their freedom.

Covid-19 booster shots now available to all U.S. adults » COVID-19 booster shots are now available to all adults in the United States. The FDA dropped age requirements on Friday, hoping to stave off a winter surge in new cases.

And on Sunday, President Biden’s top medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told ABC’s This Week that if you were vaccinated with one of the mRNA vaccines...

FAUCI: Either the Pfizer or the Moderna six months or more ago, get boosted. And the same with regard to J&J, if you were vaccinated two months ago, get boosted.

Under the new rules, anyone 18 or older can choose either a Pfizer or Moderna booster six months after their last dose. For anyone who got the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the wait already was just two months. And people can mix-and-match boosters from any company.

Studies have shown that the effectiveness of the vaccines after initial doses gradually fades over time. And Fauci said they’re still sifting through data, but there’s another possible benefit from boosters...

FAUCI: …that that third shot with the mRNA not only boosts you way up, but increases the durability, so that you will not necessarily need it every six months or a year.

Following the delta variant surge in the summer, cases had been falling in the United States since early September. But over the last three weeks, new infections have risen about 30 percent.

Tens of thousands protest Belgium's tighter COVID-19 rules » In Belgium, tens of thousands demonstrated Sunday in the streets of Brussels against reinforced COVID-19 restrictions.

Many of the estimated 35,000 people at the rally had already left for home when the demonstration descended into violence. Some protesters threw rocks and smoke bombs at police, smashed cars and set fires. Police fired back with tear gas and water cannons.

Belgium has imposed new rules requiring people to work from home for most of the work week if possible. The government also imposed new mask requirements at indoor venues, and rapid COVID testing requirements at nightclubs.

Earlier, marchers came to protest the government's strong advice to get vaccinated and any possible moves to impose mandatory shots.

Protester Aidan Pu said many people simply choose not to get vaccinated …

PU: And we don’t need to explain ourselves because it’s alright to decline such a thing. That's what everybody thinks here, I think. I can speak for everybody that we all are against these mandatory rules that are implying that we are not really free anymore.

Europe is a major hotspot for the pandemic right now. The WHO says it’s the only region in which COVID-19 deaths are rising.

Protesters decry Rittenhouse verdict in several U.S. cities » Meantime, here in the United States, protests continued though the weekend over the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

Demonstrators took to the streets in several major U.S. cities. In Portland, Oregon, law enforcement declared a riot Friday night. Rioters shattered windows and threw objects at police.

A jury in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Friday acquitted the 18-year-old of murder and other felony charges.

His attorneys successfully argued that Rittenhouse was being attacked when he shot three men, two of them fatally, last August, and that he acted in self-defense. The incident occurred amid protests and riots in Kenosha following a police shooting.

Missing Chinese tennis star reappears in public in Beijing » Missing Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai reappeared in public Sunday at a youth tournament in Beijing. She was seen in pictures posted to social media by the tournament’s organizer.

On Nov. 2nd, Peng accused a Communist party official of sexual assault. A short time later, she disappeared.

On Saturday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki issued this statement…

PSAKI: We join in the calls for PRC authorities to provide independent and verifiable proof of her whereabouts and that she is safe.

P.R.C. stands for the People’s Republic of China.

Peng’s disappearance and China’s silence on the matter prompted many to call for a boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February. And the women’s professional tour threatened to pull events out of the country.

Discussion of Peng’s accusation has been scrubbed from websites in China. And internet filters there also block most people in China from seeing global social media and news reports.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife tops weekend box office » At the weekend box office, Ghostbusters: Afterlife easily busted the competition.

TRAILER: Somehow, a town that isn’t anywhere near a tectonic plate, that has no faultlines, no fracking, no loud music even, is shaking on a daily basis. 

The latest installment in the Ghostbusters franchise hauled in $44 million domestically in its opening weekend.

Marvel’s Eternals grabbed second place with another $11 million in ticket sales. And Clifford the Big Red Dog finished third with $8 million.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: the Second Amendment gets a hearing at the Supreme Court.

Plus, a crash on the red planet.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday, November 22nd and we’re so glad you’ve joined us for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

Today, two oral arguments the Supreme Court heard earlier this month.

First up, the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It passed into law as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Here’s how it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Two hundred thirty years later? The scope and extent of that right remains unsettled.

EICHER: The Supreme Court clarified one aspect of the right in a 2008 decision. That is, the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms inside your home for lawful purposes, self defense being one of those lawful purposes.

The decision also stated that the right is not unlimited.

REICHARD: …Leaving unanswered what those limits might be.

This case may well answer that question. It asks: what are the limits of the Second Amendment and the right to self defense outside the home?

EICHER: Let’s begin with the facts of the case.

It centers around Robert Nash and Brandon Koch. They are described as law-abiding citizens of New York. They both passed required background checks, they both met all qualifications to carry, they both are already licensed for other purposes, like hunting and target practice.

Nash and Koch also want to carry firearms for self-defense.

REICHARD: But New York refused them that license. A state law on the books for 108 years requires the men to show “proper cause” for self defense.

Problem is, no statute defines “proper cause.” State court decisions say it means you have to show a special need for self defense. Just some general sense of wanting to protect yourself isn’t enough. And a local official gets to decide what is enough.

Here’s how lawyer for the two men, Paul Clement, set out the case:

CLEMENT: That is not how constitutional rights work. Carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right. It is not some extraordinary action that requires an extraordinary demonstration of need. Petitioners here seek nothing more than their fellow citizens in 43 other states already enjoy, and those states include some of the most populous cities in the country.

Populous city—that’s important. Remember it. It’ll come up again later.

Clement argued that nobody has to say he has a really good reason to go hunting or a better reason to hunt than other people in the community. So state law should work the same way for self defense as it does for hunting.

Arguing for the other side in defense of New York’s law, state Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. Restrictions on public carry of guns are nothing new, she said. They go back 700 years!

UNDERWOOD: ...to the 14th-century statute of Northampton, which prohibited carrying arms in fairs and markets and other public gathering places, to similar laws adopted by half of the American colonies and states in the founding period, to later state laws that relaxed restrictions for people who had a concrete need for armed self-defense.

One of the men suing in this case stated his concrete need for armed self defense this way: his neighborhood had endured a string of robberies. Hence his need for a license to carry outside the home.

But that wasn’t justification enough for the licensing officer, because the man hadn’t shown his need for self defense was any different from the general public’s need for it.

Justice Samuel Alito probed that “concrete need” language with Underwood in this lengthy exchange:

ALITO: So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has criminal record. They're all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has said I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right? 

UNDERWOOD: That is in general right, yes. If there's nothing particular to them, that's right.

ALITO: How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?

Underwood answered that self defense doesn’t mean everyone can be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.

Back to square one with that answer. What are the limits?

Here’s Underwood and Justice Alito again locking horns over limits, particularly in the subway system.

ALITO: There are -- there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren't there?

UNDERWOOD: I don't know that there are a lot of armed people.


UNDERWOOD: Illegal guns….

ALITO: Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. How many illegal guns were seized by the New York Police Department last year. Do you have any idea?

UNDERWOOD: I don’t have that number, but I’m sure it’s a substantial number.

ALITO: But all these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway. They’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary hardworking law-abiding I mentioned, no. They can’t be armed.

UNDERWOOD: Well, I think the subways are— when there are problems on the subways— are protected by the transit police...

Justice Alito shot back, so to speak, pointing out that celebrities, judges, and police officers have a right to self defense, but not a regular person who feels threatened?

Underwood focused again on population size as a limiting factor:

UNDERWOOD: The other point is that proliferating guns in a populated area where there is law enforcement jeopardizes law enforcement because, when they come, they now can't tell who's shooting, and the shooting proliferates and accelerates...

Justice Brett Kavanaugh bluntly asked:

KAVANAUGH: Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?

Underwood answered that a licensing officer would assess whether that’s true and make a determination.

Justice Kavanaugh:

KAVANAUGH: Well, that's the real concern, isn't it, with any constitutional right? If it's the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right. I mean, what if you're a runner and you say I run a lot, and, there are a lot of serious violent crimes on running paths. It's a real problem. Is that good enough? 

UNDERWOOD: Well, probably.

The liberal-leaning justices had questions for Paul Clement who argued against the gun law.

One of them went on deer hunting trips with the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Listen to Justice Elena Kagan:

KAGAN: You know, if you had a bunch of statistics which suggest that the state is quite sensitive to people's need for self-defense and gives these licenses a significant amount of the time, you might think differently about the regulatory scheme, wouldn't you?

Not as to his clients, Clement answered. And statistics or not, this law turns a constitutional right into a discretionary whim.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor ticked off times in history where England and America didn’t allow unrestricted rights to carry. Besides, isn’t “good cause” reasonable?

SOTOMAYOR: But why is a good cause requirement any different than that discretion that was given to local officials to deny the carrying of firearms to people that they thought it was inappropriate, whether it was the mentally ill or any other qualification? I -- that's how I see the good cause as fitting in -- within that tradition.

Clement responded that he didn’t read history that way. A typical New Yorker who satisfies every other qualification ought not have to show some atypical need to carry for self defense.

Justice Stephen Breyer didn’t buy Clement’s argument that hunting and self defense ought to be treated the same way.

BREYER: Well, the difference, of course, you have a concealed weapon to go hunting. You're out with an intent to shoot, say, a deer or a rabbit, which has its problems. But, here, when you have a self-defense just for whatever you want to carry a concealed weapon, you go shooting it around and somebody gets killed.

CLEMENT: With respect, Justice Breyer, that's not been the experience in the 43 jurisdictions that allow their citizens to have the same rights that my clients are looking for.

Justice Alito brought it back to how to define a “sensitive place” where a license to carry could be restricted.

Perhaps it means locations where officials take prophylactic responsibility for security. For example, the magnetometer you go through before you enter a courthouse.

I don’t think the New York law is going to stand. We’ll know by July.

This last case deals with another one of our Bill of Rights, the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

It asks whether a Board of Directors can curb one board member who publicly criticized the board, sued them, arranged for robocalls to oppose board decisions, and more.

In response, the Board of the Houston Community College System censured him, barred him from holding officer positions, and ceased travel reimbursement.

The man sued, alleging the board violated his freedom of speech.

You can hear what I think the eventual decision may be in this from Justice Clarence Thomas:

THOMAS: … if the courts get involved in this, that we would be involved in the rough and tumble of politics and that it would not be productive.

I don’t think the disgruntled board member is going to win this one.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

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 now for our weekly conversation and commentary on business, markets, and the economy. David, good morning.

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

EICHER: Let’s jump right in. Seems like the big story of the week was passage in the House of the so-called reconciliation bill—the $4 trillion tax-and-spend bill—what do you think?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that Friday morning, the House passing the reconciliation bill, is what the media would have made the big story, but it isn't the big story in the market or the economy, when everybody knows and has known that the real hinge in this legislative endeavor is next. It's what the Senate does. And I might add, I fully expect there to be another hinge because if the Senate is able to get something done, which is a big ‘if’, then that has to get reconciled in conference to the House bill. And that opens up a second hinge. In other words, what the house just approved is not going to be what the senate approves. And what the Senate revises for approval may not be what the House reapproves. So there's still too big ‘ifs’ in front, and certainly four or five weeks, if not more to go, I suspect it does bleed into 2022. But as far as economic news of the week, I don't think it's just this week, I think we're in a period where all of that attention that was understandably placed throughout the COVID moment on where the labor numbers were, all of those data points that were our ongoing kind of weekly focus, now a lot of the number obsession is moved to things related to this supply chain disruption, labor shortages, port deliveries. And I think you're gonna see a lot of numbers in the, not just weeks, but months ahead, that are going to draw a lot of that focus. And when I see the industrial production number, and the amount of supplied deliveries that are delayed and backlogged, there's a lot of questions as to where this is going to go for the, let's say, three to six months ahead.

EICHER: Alright, several months, David, a quarter or two. So, would you say it’s just too early to draw conclusions where things may be headed?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I definitely don't think you can draw firm conclusions, I would have a working thesis that some numbers will improve quicker than people think. And some numbers will take longer than people think that it's not going to be totally binary, that there's simply one element. I think that the shortage of truck drivers is an underrated problem. I think we're getting to a point where port receipts and the ability to process deliveries to ports has now become an overrated problem. So that would be the comments I'd make for our listeners on the short to intermediate term realities of price levels. On a longer term statement about the cultural ramifications of what's happening. I really couldn't understate my concern for the amount of people that have decided they do not want to work. I don't believe this is simply a matter of well, they got government money. But no matter what someone's lot in life is, a few 1000 bucks only lasts you so long. And the yes, that additional government transfer payment facilitated, I think, some bad behavior and some bad habits. And then you have the extended unemployment we've talked about a lot. But I think what is clearly the case right now is that there has been, out of the COVID moment, lockdowns, extended stay from home sort of inertia about societal activity and productivity that's kicked in, there are people whether they can afford it or not, there are people that are attracted to the notion of inactivity. And I have economic thoughts - but they're secondary for me right now - to what I believe is the case for the soul of a society that ends up with a ton of 55 to 65 year olds that are still able-bodied, and able-minded, that choose not to work, and the 19 to 25 year olds that are not working, who otherwise would be, that have decided they can get by on mom and dad here and student loans there and a few government checks there. And they delay the entry into adult life and habits of interaction and responsibility. I think it's awful, Nick, and those are the things I'm by far most worried about right now coming out of COVID.

EICHER: So interesting—and when I hear back from listeners, this is exactly what I hear—that what the listener appreciates about your analysis is that it’s not simplistic and not just here’s a supply and demand chart and here’s some math and a formula, but that economics as a key to understanding human action, you’re describing a cultural issue and not simply an issue of policy choice. Problems of culture!

BAHNSEN: I would like to offer a positive example that is, to the contrary, that my point about culture can be a force of bad and the economy should also be taken as culture can be a force for good in the economy. And the fact of matter is, the American experiment was largely a story of the synthesis between a moral and religious people who had economic freedom and economic ambition. And those things coming together were what de Tocqueville looked at and said, ‘This is a great nation.’ And as, there's a reason why the whole world's economic standard of living went higher in the industrial revolution, but ours went way, way higher. We didn't just perform well because of the Industrial Revolution, we outperformed Europe, who also was living through the Industrial Revolution. There was a reason for that: it was a better framework of incentives of work ethic, of a calibration of risk and reward in our culture. And see, here's the thing, here's what I'm not saying: that we're going to end up with a nation of 300 million people who don't want to work. What's going to happen is you're going to have the people who are at kind of the bottom half of the society, socially and economically, are going to go lower. And the people that are the top 20% of performers, the so-called meritocratic, they're not going to slow down. They have ambition, they have drive, they have talent. So everybody says they're so worried about inequality. But these are the things that drive inequality. It's not systemic unfairness, it's when all of a sudden people that are going to work are going to work even more, and they're already quite gifted and talented and resourced. And then a different part of the population decides to give in to the notion of exit, of inactivity. This is human action at either its finest or its worst. And it is, by far, the issue that we should be most concerned about, because people can't blame government for this. Government on the edges can make it worse with bad policy. But there's a point at which that excuse has got to stop. Okay, we are made with agency. We are made as accountable people created by God, and the Fed, and the government and the media can only be the scapegoat for what is plaguing our society for so long.

EICHER: Excellent. Hey, before we go here today, I tried to make a clever play on the word “inflation” or really a play on the economic concept of price inflation on Friday. You’ve heard us talking about those who’ve not given before to support the program and I made a remark about the matching-gift incentive where a family offered to a dollar-for-dollar match for first-time gifts and I said something about recognizing the impact of price inflation on lots of households these days, that it may be difficult to give and that the match can be thought of as our generous donor’s attempt to combat inflation by offering a 2X match. I’d made a mental note: better run this by David when we talk. I don’t want to put out any economic misinformation!

BAHNSEN: Well, it's definitely a sort of equivocation of the word on purpose. So does it fit into the Milton Friedman formula of too much money chasing too few goods and services? No, not really. But is it a situation in which you can inflate or leverage the generosity of people involved? It is and so it's a sort of cute equivocation. Let's put it that way.

EICHER: Great! Helpful! And, at the risk of being obtuse, when you say “a cute equivocation” you mean of course an equivocation that is cute or funny. Not an equivocation that is “acute,” i.e., intense or perceptive…

BAHNSEN: Hahaha, that’s right!

EICHER: All right! David Bahnsen, financial analyst and adviser. He writes at dividendcafe.com. We will not talk again until after Thanksgiving, so Happy Thanksgiving to you and we’ll talk again in a week. Appreciate it!

BAHNSEN: Well, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours and of course to all the listeners. 

EICHER: Well, during this month we do encourage you if you appreciate this program and maybe you’ve not yet made a gift to keep it going that you would consider supporting it with a first-time gift and I’ll make that cute equivocation and say again: all first-time gifts unlock a dollar-for-dollar match and say we’re fighting inflation with inflation at wng.org/donate. Thank you very much!

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, November 22nd. 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. Next up: The WORLD History Book. Today, farewell to a makeup maven, a wreck on the red planet, and a high-altitude heist. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: It was a dark and stormy night 50 years ago over Washington state when a hijacker parachuted from a commercial flight with a knapsack containing $200,000.

That sum equals about $1.3 million in today’s dollars. It was ransom money, assembled hastily by the FBI. They never caught the hijacker, known only as Dan or “D.B.” Cooper—not his real name.

He boarded a Northwest Orient Airlines flight from Portland to Seattle on November 24th, 1971. It was only a 30-minute flight, with no security checks. Passengers and airline employees described “Cooper” as a middle-aged, white man, dressed neatly in a suit and tie. After the flight had taken off from Portland, he handed a flight attendant a note, telling her he had a bomb in his briefcase.

Ralph Himmelsbach was a retired FBI agent who worked on the Cooper case as soon as air traffic control alerted him. He talked to National Geographic about his decision to advise the airline to meet Cooper’s demands.

HIMMELSBACH: Here’s an airplane full of innocent people. They’re hostages being held at threat of their lives, so I said, “Whatever it takes, do it if you can.”

Cooper demanded money, four parachutes, and a refueling truck standing by in Seattle. Once the plane landed in Seattle, a senior Northwest Orient employee delivered the items to Cooper, and Cooper agreed to release the passengers and two flight attendants. The remaining flight crew established a plan with Cooper to continue toward Mexico, refueling once in Reno.

But, Cooper lowered the airstair somewhere over southwest Washington shortly after takeoff and parachuted out, with the bag of money tied around his waist. From a television news report the next day:

BILL CURTIS: Police believe he left the 727 in the flatlands of Oregon or Washington, but they’re still looking in four states, even around the airport.

Authorities never found the hijacker. But, in 1980, an 8-year-old boy found nearly $6000 of the ransom money submerged in the area around the suspected jump site. That discovery didn’t turn up any leads. The FBI officially suspended its investigation in July 2016—45 years after the heist.

Moving from a notorious skydive to an unfortunate crash landing.

The Soviet space program made history on November 27th, 1971, with its Mars 2 mission. The round, uncrewed Mars 2 lander became the first man-made object to reach the surface of Mars. And it’s arrival was explosive—literally. After it deployed from its orbiter, the lander hurtled toward Mars at a speed of nearly 4 miles a second, crashing on the surface and becoming inoperable.

But, a feather in the space helmets of NASA: The U.S. space program’s Viking Project became the first mission to land a spacecraft safely on Mars’ surface five years later, in June 1976. Those missions convinced most scientists that life doesn’t exist on Mars. But, some in the aerospace field aim to change that. Both NASA and SpaceX have proposed plans that would send crews to Mars before the decade is out.

And from the red planet to pink Cadillacs.

SONG: “Pink Cadillac,” Aretha Franklin

Twenty years have passed since the death of Mary Kay Ash, the American businesswoman who founded Mary Kay, Inc. She died at age 83 on November 22nd, 2001.

COMMERCIAL: Mary Kay is a scientifically formulated skincare system, created to work with your type of skin…

The blonde started her cosmetics empire in 1963, at age 45, turning a $5000 investment into a 500-square foot cosmetics boutique in Dallas. The formulas for her face creams came from a tanner by trade—as in, a person who tans animal hides. But Ash said over the years that the company wasn’t just in the business of beauty products; she aimed to empower women in the workplace. She spoke to KRTV in Montana in 1982 about her company’s start.

ASH: In 1963, there was no such thing as a liberated woman. You walk two paces behind the boss, and getting into the executive suite was absolutely out of the question…

Ash had worked as a corporate trainer for cleaning supply company Stanley Home Products, and found that she’d often onboard corporate greenhorns, only to find those men becoming her boss within a matter of months. She said she began asking herself why, if she could train these executives, couldn’t she become one herself?

ASH: And so Mary Kay Cosmetics was born.

But, Ash—a mother of three grown children when she started her company—didn’t want women to succeed at the expense of their families. Again, speaking to the KRTV reporter.

ASH: So faith is number one in your life, we know that you put God first. Family second, job third, because it’s my opinion that if you make the most money in all the world and have to go home and count it by yourself, and lose your family in your process, it’s not worth it.

SONG: “Pretty Woman,” Ray Orbison

At the time of Ash's death, Mary Kay had nearly a million sales reps in 37 countries, with total annual sales topping $200 million.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: outdated technology. If you think you have to upgrade your expensive devices too often, you’re not alone. We’ll tell you about how tech companies consider that a feature, not a flaw.

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.

As we said, if you’ve never given before, November’s the month for you to become a brand new donor, please this month join the army of more than 10,000 others who give regularly to keep all of our journalism strong and supplied.

The Bible says: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come!

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.


Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register, subscribe, or login to comment on this article.

Kenley Leslie

The clip of ‘Pretty Woman’ after the history segment on Mary Kay was !!HILARIOUS!!