The World and Everything in It - October 11, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Supreme Court justices ask if the U.S. government will allow testimony about alleged torture by the CIA.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: a disappointing report on jobs—economist David Bahnsen will dissect it.

Plus the WORLD History Book. 200 years ago this week, a notable birth.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, October 11th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

REICHARD: Up next, Kristen Flavin with today’s news.

KRISTEN FLAVIN, NEWS ANCHOR: Debate over spending bills set to resume » Debate over President Biden’s two big spending priorities will likely heat up this week. Democrats are trying to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion social spending package.

The Senate has already approved the infrastructure measure. But progressive Democrats in the House don’t want to hold a vote in their chamber until the Senate passes the larger spending bill as well.

Moderates in the party, including Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, say they can’t support a bill that big.

Congressman Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from New Jersey, told Fox News he’s confident his party will eventually deliver on both bills.

MALINOWSKI: I wish we could have just decoupled them. But I’m confident we’re going to get both of these things done, and that once we do, they’re going to be extremely beneficial to the country.

But Republican Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas told the network he’s not so sure.

BRADY: I think there is a very good chance the tax and spend bill will collapse. One, because the American public is starting to see what’s in it. And two, moderate Democrats really do understand they’re on their own.

Last week, President Biden said he would support scaling the larger spending package back to about $2 trillion. That’s more palatable to the party’s moderates. But Democrats must now hash out which parts of the package to cut.

Taiwan holds national day celebration » AUDIO: [Choir singing]

Taiwan held the annual celebration of its national sovereignty on Sunday amid Beijing’s vow to retake the island it considers Chinese territory.

TSAI: [Speaking Mandarin]

In her National Day address, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan didn’t have the luxury of letting down its guard. She described Taiwan “standing on democracy's first line of defense” in the face of expanding authoritarianism.

​​She added: “Nobody can force Taiwan to take the path China has laid out for us.”

XI: [Speaking Mandarin]

On Saturday, Chinese President Xi Jinping said “complete reunification” of Taiwan “will be and can be realized.”

Tensions between Beijing and Taiwan have simmered since the island declared its independence following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. But Beijing’s interest in reclaiming the territory has grown under Xi Jinping’s leadership.

This year, Chinese fighter jets and nuclear-capable bombers have made about 600 sorties into Taiwan's air defense identification zone. That’s nearly double the number they made last year.

Power back on in Lebanon after 24-hour blackout » AUDIO: [Sound of traffic]

Lebanon plunged into darkness Saturday night as the country’s two power plants both ran out of fuel. Cars sped down pitch-black streets as backup generators also ran out of fuel.

The state electricity corporation said the nation’s power grid suffered a “complete collapse without any possibility of restoring it for the time being.” But it said it expected a fuel oil shipment to arrive over the weekend and be ready to unload early this week.

Limited service returned on Sunday, with residents reporting about two hours of electricity from the national grid.

Power shortages have become common in Lebanon amid its economic crisis. The state power grid already suffered rolling blackouts. In most places it can only provide electricity for about one hour a day. 

Shootout at Minnesota bar injures 14, kills 1 » A shootout at a popular bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, left 14 people wounded and one woman dead over the weekend.

Steve Linders is a spokesman for the St. Paul Police Department.

LINDERS: Officers rushed to the scene. They got there quickly. And they walked into a hellish situation. There were gunshot wound victims lying in the street outside the bar. There were gunshot wound victims lying on the sidewalk outside the bar. And there were gunshot wound victims on the floor, inside the bar.

Police arrested three of the wounded after they were discharged from the hospital. Investigators are still trying to determine a motive for the violence.

The gunfire started shortly after midnight. The Seventh Street Truck bar is part of a busy entertainment district near where the city’s NHL team plays. Officials said it’s not the kind of place that usually requires visits from the police.

I’m Kristen Flavin. Straight ahead: the first oral arguments in the new Supreme Court term.

Plus, the YMCA holds its first meeting.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday, October 11th 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court term began last Monday, the first Monday in October.

CURLEY: (gavel) The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court.

EICHER: Then Chief Justice John Roberts made a few announcements.

ROBERTS: I'd like to begin by noting that Justice Kavanaugh will be participating in the argument today, remotely.

For good reason: Justice Brett Kavanaugh having tested positive for Covid days before.

Then the Chief Justice introduced the woman who called the court to order. She would be the court’s 11th marshal.

ROBERTS: I'm also pleased to welcome Gail Curley as the new Marshal of the court. Marshal Curley retired from the United States Army this summer, where she held the rank of colonel and was most recently chief of the National Security Law division of the Judge Advocate General.

REICHARD: Next, the chief announced the first case of the term:

ROBERTS: We will hear argument first this morning in original case 143, Mississippi against Tennessee.

You heard him say “original case.” That means a lawsuit filed directly at the Supreme Court. No winding through the lower courts first, as most litigation does. It means one other thing: That the high court also acts as fact-finder in these cases. One type of “original case” is when a state is a party to the lawsuit.

EICHER: As in this case: Here, Mississippi and Tennessee are fighting over water. Specifically, groundwater that lies on the border between the states, in the Memphis Sand Aquifer.

Mississippi says that Tennessee pumped groundwater from that aquifer to use across the border in Memphis. That, Mississippi argues, violates its state sovereignty and about $600 million in damages ought to square things up.

REICHARD: For its part, Tennessee does a virtual eye roll. Tennessee says Mississippi is using the same arguments that failed in other fights over water. Earlier court decisions say that groundwater is an interstate resource and can’t be apportioned the way Mississippi wants. Usually, water disputes are handled so that states are ordered to share the water and use it reasonably so as not to waste it. The legal term of art for that is “equitable apportionment.”

EICHER: This dispute’s been bouncing around for a long while. In 2015, the Supreme Court appointed a special master to look into the matter and report back.

He finally did that last year. The Special Master recommended the court dismiss Mississippi’s case.

Obviously, that’s not the result Mississippi hoped for. So now its lawyers take a different tack: in addition to damages, they also want the court to say Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over the groundwater.

REICHARD: Justice Clarence Thomas asked the first question to Mississippi’s lawyer, John Coghlan:

THOMAS: Couldn’t Tennessee or Arkansas or Missouri all make the same argument that whenever you pump, you’re causing similar problems for them?

That incredulity didn’t let up. Listen to Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: You've been litigating this case for over 16 years. You started in the Fifth Circuit. You went to the district court, you went to the circuit court; both courts told you you've got to seek equitable apportionment. You come here in 2010. We tell you the same thing. Now this is the third time you've done this. This -- this time you explicitly disclaim any claim for equitable apportionment. When is enough enough?

Coghlan did his level best to argue that damages is the right way to fix this particular dispute. Not that “equitable apportionment” doctrine.

And if the high court dismisses the case as the special master recommended? Then Coghlan asked that Mississippi be able to amend its complaint to argue equitable apportionment next time, no matter how long this case drags on.

The justices didn’t let the other side completely off the hook, though. Some worried about setting a precedent that could spawn more lawsuits over groundwater. Here’s Justice Stephen Breyer:

BREYER: I’m nervous. Maybe every state will start, all start suing each other—except Alaska and Hawaii. Maybe it’s better left to compacts or Congress.

Maybe it is. We’ll soon find out what the justices decide.

Now for the final argument we’ll cover today.

ROBERTS: We will hear argument in case 20-827. United States versus Zubaydoo. Mr. Fletcher?

A little aside here: I don’t think the Chief Justice checks with the parties about how to pronounce their names before he announces their names.

He was close, but this case is United States versus Zubaydah.

This case is quite somber. The facts arose after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the US government was chasing down suspected terrorists.

To that end, the CIA established what’s known as “black sites” in cooperating foreign countries. The CIA controls these facilities and the U.S. government uses them to detain enemy combatants.

It’s a matter of perspective whether you call what happened there “torture” or “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Zubaydah goes with the former—he calls it “torture.” As did a 2014 Senate intelligence committee, as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

The Senate report is classified, although a summary of it is open to the public. It describes specific instances of waterboarding, such as Zubaydah’s going “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”

He was the first prisoner detained under the program back in 2002, at a “black site” in Poland. The CIA considered him a former associate of Osama bin Laden. Later, the CIA revoked that assessment.

Polish prosecutors are investigating CIA conduct in their country. Zubaydah intervened in that investigation. He wants courts to compel the US government to disclose information about his time at the “black site.”

The government says no way, asserting the “state-secrets privilege.” That lets the government resist orders by a court to disclose information during litigation, if there’s a reasonable danger that the disclosure would harm national security.

The difficulty here is that some information about Zubaydah’s treatment in Poland is declassified. Some information is not.

How to sort that out is the question.

Listen as Justice Thomas asks the lawyer for the government, acting Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, about letting two CIA contractors testify:

THOMAS: The two contractors have testified about the treatment of detainees before, right?
FLETCHER: That's correct, Justice Thomas.
THOMAS: So why couldn't they also testify here? What difference would it make?
FLETCHER: It would make a difference because of the critical difference between the context of the testimony and what they would be conveying and because this proceeding is all about revealing the involvement of foreign partners, it's fundamentally different from the testimony that has been given in the past.

Fletcher argued that compelling these two CIA contractors to testify in this case would breach trust between the United States and other nations. That’s a matter of national security, under the ambit of the executive branch. Courts ought not second guess it.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree at least in part on giving deference to CIA director’s assessment of national security risks:

KAGAN: Courts are going to know less about that than the CIA director does.

Lawyer for Zuybayah, David Klein, tried to skewer the government’s argument of “secret” anything. Then Justice Alito followed up.

KLEIN: We’re not talking about a secret anymore. We’re talking about a governmental wish not to assist this Polish investigation. 

ALITO: I mean, the subtlety of this is somehow escaping me. You claim you have everything and yet you have a need for this additional information. It does seem to me all you want is a more official link from these government contractors that what you say happened occurred in Poland and not in some other location. Otherwise, I don't see what need you have for any of what you're asking for.

The justices overall seemed to lean in the government’s direction. Chief Justice Roberts told Klein, Zubaydah’s lawyer, that sure, everybody may know about this. Maybe it’s no secret at all:

ROBERTS: But you don't have the United States Government acknowledging that. And the United States Government says this is critically important because our friends, allies, intelligence sources around the world have to believe that we keep our word, and our word was this is secret. And so they may be -- you know, the CIA director may be the last person in the world to -- to have said this is where the site is, but that's what's important, what the United States has revealed, not what you find.

Some justices cast about for a solution that doesn’t involve state secrets or worries about how much deference to give the CIA.

Justice Stephen Breyer queried lawyer Klein, for Zubaydah:

BREYER: Why don't you ask Mr. Zubaydah? Why doesn't he testify? Why doesn't Mr. Zubaydah -- he was there. Why doesn't he say this is what happened?

Klein answered that his client cannot testify, because he’s being held incommunicado at Guantanamo, where he’s been since 2006.

So Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the government lawyer about that:

SOTOMAYOR: We want a clear answer: Are you going to permit him to testify as to what happened to him those dates without invoking a state secret or other privilege? Yes or no. That’s all we’re looking for.

Fletcher answered, Zubaydah could communicate on the same terms as anyone else: with his communications screened by security for classified information and other security risks.

So now Fletcher will file a follow up brief about the protocols for such testimony.

Meaning, this case isn’t over.

CURLEY: (gavel) The honorable court is now adjourned until Tuesday, the 12th of October, at 10 o’clock. (gavel)

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

NICK EICHER, HOST: So, you know, let’s talk about—like—filler words.

Those words that we could “basically” omit from a sentence and really not miss?

REICHARD: Totally!

A London secondary school is cracking down on the use of those in the classroom.

Ark All Saints Academy issued students a comprehensive list of the verboten words. A few notable entries: Starting sentences with “ermmm…” “because,” “you see,” and “basically.”

I have to say, they may be on to something. The school principal said faculty banned those words and phrases so students would express themselves “clearly and accurately.”

Linguists have cried foul. They argue that putting such an emphasis on formal communication may cause students to hold off on communicating at all. Teachers responded, saying that slang is fine on the playground, but not in written classwork or classroom discussion.

My question: cutting some slang and filler words is great, but I have just one question: Can we do something about emojis?

REICHARD: I like emojis. Insert smiley face here.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

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

BIDEN: Today’s report has the unemployment rate down to 4.8 percent, a significant improvement from when I took office and a sign that our recovery is moving forward even in the face of a COVID pandemic.

NICK EICHER, HOST: President Biden referring to the September jobs report—touting it as good news—even in the face of the economic headwinds of the Delta variant of Covid.

The jobs report from the BLS—the government’s bureau of labor statistics—had American employers adding just shy of 200,000 jobs in September. 194,000 to be exact. And it brought, as the president said, the unemployment rate down from 5.2 percent the previous month to 4.8 percent.

Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us now for our weekly conversation and commentary on markets and the economy. 

David, good morning.

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

EICHER: This jobs report fell way short of expectations. It’s got to be disappointing at a certain level.

BAHNSEN: It's disappointing at almost every level. I think that it is impossible to ignore the underperformance in the private sector relative to what was expected. But on the monthly numbers, we got some foreshadowing from ADP in the pure private sector payroll number a couple days before, that came in lower than expected. And then, of course, the BLS number Friday at 194,000 was substantially lower than what had been expected.

EICHER: You’ve explained this before, but it bears repeating: if the report falls short of the number of jobs that really need to come back—in other words, it’s a disappointing jobs report, but still you see a nice decrease in the unemployment rate. How can that be?

BAHNSEN: The reason that the unemployment rate drops sometimes, even when the absolute number of new jobs created is less than expected, is because there's two numbers, two inputs that go into the percentage, the numerator and the denominator. But then when you have the total amount of people that are looking for a job, that are basically either employed or wanting to be employed, it's what we call the labor participation force. And when that number drops, you can end up with an improvement in the unemployment rate, because the total amount of people who are unemployed is divided by the people in the labor force, the math moves in that direction.

This is the problem that I've talked about for a long time now, that is far more important, in terms of long-term impact, the structural impact right now month by month with the jobs number, that indicates a few things about people coming back to work: The fact of matter is the two big things that have mattered over the last, let's call it two years, were the huge numbers of jobs lost when they shut down the economy for COVID, and then the huge recovery that's taking place. Then the rest becomes kind of marginal.

The fact of the matter is that the labor participation force declining indicates more and more people that are giving up or just plain not interested in going back to work. That to me, as I've talked about several times with you, Nick, is very, very concerning, from a societal standpoint, a cultural, the productive impact for the economy. And then, of course, just existentially I want to see more of these people working, not less.

EICHER: I want to ask you to comment on President Biden’s explanation why the report wasn’t the strong report economists were looking for. He opened up his statement talking about the enormous progress his policies are making: The monthly totals bounce around, he says, but if you take a look at the trend, it’s solid.

Nevertheless, he reminds us of this. Have a listen:

BIDEN: Remember, today’s report is based on a survey that was taken during the week of September the 13th — not today, September the 13th — when COVID cases were averaging more than 150,000 per day. Since then, we’ve seen the daily cases fall by more than one third, and they’re continuing to trend down.

In other words, it would be much better, but Covid.

Your response?

BAHNSEN: Well it isn't true. That's my response. It's inaccurate.

I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that he doesn't think it's accurate either. I'd be far more concerned if they were actually operating off of bad information. But it is spin and it's a distortion of reality, and it doesn't explain at all the various movements in prior months, and it doesn't explain the job openings. We’re supposed to believe that people were not wanting to hire because of COVID increases in cases, and yet there's more job openings and a need for labor at record levels. It's totally contradictory.

The fact of the matter is that we have a problem of people not wanting to work. We do not have a problem about positions being open. I have also readily acknowledged we have a problem of skills mismatch. That's not easily resolved. That's not a political problem.

But when it just comes to the basic math of did people want to hire folks last month but chose not to because of Delta? It defies anybody's empirical observation. And it defies what the data tells us about many employers' desperation to get new workers, not reluctance.

EICHER: We talked for many months, David, about the disincentives to work from the extended unemployment benefits—government policies that discourage work—and with those coming to an end in September, we’d start to see improvement. But we really haven't, not yet. Is it just too soon to tell, or what explains the lag between policy change and practical effect?

BAHNSEN: Well, yeah, I think that there's two things going on: You needed the month of September for those things to work through, like even people who stopped getting their government checks in early September, they likely weren't going to go out and get a job on day one. And so you kind of needed a few weeks for it to work its way through. And in fact, this week was the first weekly jobless claims number that actually dropped by about 30,000, from the week before. But in terms of monthly data, I definitely think that there will be a bigger lag there, it would take into the month of November to get the month of October report.

But it's entirely possible you don't get a big bounce back. Just simply if there are enough people that after 7, 8, 9 months of the extra government checks, for many people, they could potentially have been out of the workforce all the way since the beginning of COVID, maybe seven, eight months worth of their employer not having a job for them. And then another year of them choosing not to work with the extra benefits and things like that. And not to mention the direct payments that were received, three different occasions of thousands of dollars that were directly infused on top of the unemployment supplement.

But I think that there's two things that we're going to have to solve for that I don't know the answer to. One is how many of those people just decided ‘I'm going to, I just really don't want to go back to work, I'll try to make something happen in a stay at home environment.’ You know, there's different behavioral decisions that could be evidenced when you get conditioned to unemployment. But of course, the other possibility is there's employers that don't hire some of those people just simply because they feel that they're less skilled, less, you know, disciplined, they're, they're not job ready. And there's plenty aspects of the economy that are going to require somebody who might have been engaged over the last year, not, you know, whatever they were doing, and so I'm not trying to throw shade on anybody. I'm making a generalization on purpose.

The fact of matter is that we are both an employer and employee side that could be problematic for people who have been out of the workforce, voluntarily, an extended period of time reentering jobs or like exercise. It is very hard to get up and running again at full speed when you've taken a lot of time off.

EICHER: David Bahnsen—financial analyst and adviser. He writes at dividendcafe.com. David, grateful as always.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything In It: The WORLD History Book. Today, Nazis face the executioner, understanding the eugenic roots of family planning in this country, and the birth of the founder of the YMCA. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: The Young Men’s Christian Association: The oldest and largest youth charity in the world. And the YMCA began with an English philanthropist named George Williams. He was born 200 years ago, on October 11th, 1821.

When he was 13, he left the family farm and began working in a drapery factory. He would later reflect on his early years, describing himself as “a careless, thoughtless, godless, swearing young fellow." But, church involvement turned him around. David Newman is a pastor and expert on the life of George Williams. On the City Movement podcast, he describes Williams' conversion.

NEWMAN: And he said it’s as if in that moment the lightbulb came on, and he ran back to his drape factory, got on his knees, a 15-year-old kid got on his knees in the back of the drape factory and gave his life to Jesus Christ.

After a few years, he worked his way up, eventually becoming the owner of the drapery company. In the interim, he grew to detest the working conditions in London that he felt threw temptations at young men at every turn. Brothels and taverns abounded.

So Williams recruited 11 workers to meet at his company building for prayer and Bible study. From a 1941 YMCA promotional film:

FILM: The new movement spread rapidly. Young men in other English industrial centers began to form Christian associations of their own. The work expanded into Europe…

Physical fitness joined with evangelism, and eventually supplanted outright Bible study as the YMCA’s method of training young people in good habits. The organization maintains its Christian roots, though; its mission remains “to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build a healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.”

Moving now from the founder of the YMCA to the founder of Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger opened the first U.S. birth control clinic on October 16th, 1916—105 years ago.

Sanger’s Irish Catholic mother bore 11 children. Historians like Lisa Stern say her family of origin influenced her views on family planning. She spoke to Biography about Sanger.

STERN: Most people attribute Sanger’s interest in birth control to seeing what her mother went through. She had a total of 18 pregnancies…

Another formative influence: Sanger’s work as a nurse in New York City. She claimed she often encountered immigrant women who lacked information about how to avoid becoming pregnant. She said some of those women resorted to self-induced abortions.

That led her to open that first birth control clinic, in Brooklyn. But, distributing information on contraception violated obscenity laws, and police arrested Sanger. She made bail and continued her work at the family planning clinic, prompting another arrest, and a high-profile trial. Ultimately, a judge ruled doctors could prescribe contraception, and Sanger’s work seemed less taboo.

But Sanger wasn’t just motivated by a desire to help women. She believed in eugenics—the idea that humans should reproduce selectively to eradicate less “desirable” traits.

Angela Franks is a professor at St. John’s seminary in Boston. She spoke to the Catholic news network EWTN about Sanger’s problematic legacy.

FRANKS: She considered as unfit people who were poor, people who had physical disabilities or mental or cognitive disabilities, and she considered those people to be like weeds, that they shouldn’t reproduce.

Her activism led to funding for her clinic, and a Sanger-led group called The American Birth Control League. That group later became Planned Parenthood. While Sanger may have started out with a goal of preventing pregnancy, the organization she founded now performs well over 300,000 abortions a year.

Turning now to the aftermath of World War II.

NEWSREEL: Nuremberg, Germany, once the shrine city of the Nazis, ravaged by the war Hitler launched on the world, ironically the scene of the final chapter of his partners in conquest.

Nearly a year after the conclusion of the Second World War, 10 prominent Nazi leaders faced the hangman. Their execution for war crimes came on October 16th, 1946.

Arguably the most well known of those sentenced to die that day was Hermann Goering, president of the Reichstag. But Goering escaped the noose, committing suicide by cyanide the night before.

The others faced what would become a botched execution, led by Master Sergeant John C. Woods. He lied, saying he had experience as an executioner in Texas and Oklahoma. In fact, before joining the army, he had never participated in an execution.

His inexperience may have been the reason he miscalculated the length of the ropes used for the hangings. He cut them too short, and the trap doors used in the scaffolding were too small. Rather than a quick death by a broken neck, several of the executed hit their heads as they fell through the undersized trap door, then slowly suffocated.

Facing one’s death must have a way of putting things in perspective. At least, that may have been the case for one of the men convicted by the International Military Tribunal. Former Chief of the German Armed Forces Wilhelm Keitel reportedly told the prison chaplain the day before his death, "You have helped me more than you know. May Christ, my savior, stand by me all the way. I shall need him so much."

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: police reform. We’ll tell you what happened to the federal effort to make changes to the way local departments keep the peace.

And, one last road trip. We’ll take you on a visit to San Antonio, Texas.

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.

Jesus said: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

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.