The World and Everything in It — October 12, 2020

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court takes up a case that raises the question of whether a state can require judges to affiliate with only one of two political parties.

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat: how likely is it that we’ll see new virus fiscal relief before the election. 

Plus the WORLD History Book. Twenty years ago this week, the bombing of the USS Cole.

And Andrée Seu Peterson on the wonders of your inner ear.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, October 12th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump says he’s ready to return to the campaign trail » President Trump says he feels great and is ready to get back on the campaign trail. 

That after his chief physician, Dr. Sean Conley, declared on Saturday that the president “no longer poses an infection risk” to others. 

TRUMP: It looks like I’m immune for, I don’t know, maybe a long time, maybe a short time, it could be a lifetime, nobody really knows, but I’m immune. So the president is in very good shape.  

Conley said Trump met the CDC criteria for ending his isolation. Those guidelines state that those who test positive for COVID-19 must quarantine for 10 days. But after that, they can leave isolation if symptoms have improved or disappeared and they’ve been fever-free for more than 24 hours. 

The Presidential Debate Commission cancelled this week’s scheduled debate between Trump and campaign rival Joe Biden. 

The town hall format debate was slated to take place Thursday in Miami. But after the president’s COVID-19 diagnosis, the commission declared the debate would be held virtually. President Trump said he had no interest in participating remotely. 

Senate Judiciary Committee begins Barrett confirmation hearing » Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins today in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

But it appears every member of that committee already has their mind made up. Democrats, including Delaware Senator Chris Coons, plan to vote “no.”

COONS: She has taught at a well regarded law school. She clerked for Justice Scalia, but she has views that make her not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. 

Democrats say she’s been critical of Obamacare in the past and they plan to call on her to recuse herself from any ruling pertaining to the law. They’re also concerned that she may have a pro-life perspective on abortion restrictions. 

But Democrats don’t have the votes to block her, and Republicans on the Judiciary panel—like Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse—insist Barrett is qualified in every way. 

SASSE: She’s an originalist and she’s a textualist, which means when she puts on her black robe in the morning, she knows what it is to be a judge, and that is to cloak your personal preferences. Our judges don’t wear red or blue jerseys. 

On Sunday, several media outlets posted the text of her opening statement online. The 48-year-old Barrett is expected to say that courts must “enforce the rule of law,” but they “are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.” 

She’ll tell lawmakers that political branches elected by the people must make those decisions. 

Lousianans survey damage in wake of second hurricane in 6 weeks » In southwestern Louisiana, residents and officials are cleaning up after another hurricane ripped through the region. And as they survey the wreckage, Governor John Bel Edwards said they may have trouble figuring out which storm was to blame. 

EDWARDS: We already know that there will be damage in southwest Louisiana that will be very difficult to differentiate between what was caused by Hurricane Laura and what was caused by Hurricane Delta. 

Many Louisianans found themselves trudging through knee-deep water over the weekend and more than half-million people lost power. 

Delta made landfall Friday evening with top winds of 100 mph. It then moved over Lake Charles, a city that the Category 4 Hurricane Laura devastated just weeks earlier. Lake Charles Mayor Nic Hunter…

HUNTER: We had a Category 4 storm, the strongest storm to hit Louisiana in 150 years, the fifth-strongest hurricane on record to hit the United States of America.  When you put that together six weeks ago with what we just had, it’s like a category 6!

While Delta was a weaker storm than Laura, it caused more flooding.

Hunter estimated that hundreds of already battered homes across the city took on water. He said recovery from the double impact will be long.

Delta was the 10th named storm to hit the U.S. mainland this year, breaking a record set in 1916.

Lakers win NBA championship » The Los Angeles Lakers closed out the NBA Finals last night, beating the Miami Heat 106-to-93. 

GAME: And that’s it, it’s over. This historic 2020 NBA Championship belongs to the Los Angeles Lakers! 

The sixth and final game of the series was never really close. The Lakers led the Heat by nearly 30 points at halftime. 

LeBron James led the way with a triple-double—28 points, 14 rebounds, 10 assists. 

For the Lakers, it is their 17th NBA Championship.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court kicks off its new term.

Plus, Andrée Seu Peterson on the delicate balance of the inner ear.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD: It’s Monday. This is The World and Everything in It. Today is the 12th of October, 2020. Good morning to you, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Quick note, reminder, if you live in or near Jackson, Mississippi, you might want to make plans to meet our very own Kim Henderson. She’s speaking at First Presbyterian Church on the theme, “Journalism is Never Neutral.” It’s this Wednesday, October 14th—day after tomorrow. It’s open to the public, but seating is limited, so you’ll need to RSVP. We set up a page online at worldandeverything.org/reception that provides some detail on how to claim your seat.

Again, WORLD’s Kim Henderson speaking in Jackson, Mississippi this Wednesday afternoon. Details at worldandeverything.org/reception.

REICHARD: Well, the U.S. Supreme Court is back in session. It is closed today, though, to observe Columbus Day. So tomorrow, oral arguments will resume, once again by telephone.

Before we get to the two arguments I’ll cover today from last week, I want to mention a case the justices won’t hear. 

This controversy grew directly out of a landmark decision of the court in 2015, the Obergefell case. Obergefell is the decision that redefined the legal meaning of marriage to include same-sex relationships. It ordered states all over the country to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A little over a month after that decision, one county clerk in Kentucky by the name of Kim Davis refused. For her refusal, a federal judge ordered her to jail for five days. When two same-sex couples sued her personally, Davis claimed immunity from suit, and fought the case up to the appeal the high court rejected last week.

EICHER: The justices found that the issues weren’t legally “clean” enough for the court to resolve. All the justices saw it that way.

Yet what’s notable here is that two justices issued an unusual three-and-a-half page statement. It put colleagues on notice: that at some point, when the right case comes along, the court is going to have to contend with an issue it’s left unresolved.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote it; Justice Samuel Alito joined with him. The statement noted that the Constitution explicitly protects religious liberty, yet Obergefell prioritizes a newly discovered right. The same-sex marriage right the court created trumps the religious-liberty right the constitution spells out.

REICHARD: The Court, he wrote, created the problem and only the Court can fix it. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have, Thomas wrote, “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

This foreseeable collision is apparent in some cases the Supreme Court will hear this term.

EICHER: Well, before calling order on the first day of the term last week, Chief Justice John Roberts paid tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

ROBERTS: During her time on the court, she authored 483 majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. Justice Ginsburg’s contributions as advocate, jurist, and citizen are immeasurable. We on the court will remember her as a dear friend and a treasured colleague.

Then, he got on with business:

ROBERTS: Our first case today is Number 19-309, John Carney, Governor of Delaware, versus James Adams.

James Adams is a retired lawyer in Delaware. He used to be a Democrat and now calls himself a Bernie Sanders Independent. He said in a deposition that he was to the left of the state Democratic Party, but that shouldn’t disqualify him from being a judge. Nevertheless, with no major party affiliation, the state constitution won’t let him.

That’s because in Delaware, judges in some of its top courts must either be a Republican or Democrat. The state constitution since 1897 has had provisions to prevent the governor from packing courts with partisans. 

Here’s one example of how it works. The state has five justices in its supreme court. The constitution says three must be either Republican or Democrat, the two remaining from the other political party. 

Delaware’s lawyer, Michael McConnell, explained the reason.

MCCONNELL: The framers of the Delaware constitution had lived through domination of the courts by one party and then by the other. On the basis of that experience, they resolved that a bipartisan bench would lead to fair and impartial decisions. For the last 27 years, one party has held both the governorship and the Senate, but the courts have remained balanced and nonpartisan.

REICHARD: So, changing the status quo, McConnell argued, would upset that balance.

MCCONNELL: So, if there were already a democratic  majority on the Court and the governor were able to name Mr. Adams, it would just fly in the face and frustrate the purposes of the political balance provision. 

Adams lawyer, David Finger, says you can’t assume political affiliation will determine how a judge will vote in a case. And Adams has the right to associate with whom he wants, including which political party he chooses. The only exception to that applies to people who make policy. Judges don’t make policy, he argued, they follow the law. Lawyer Finger:

FINGER: Delaware’s constitution denies Mr. Adams the opportunity to apply for a judgeship because he does not belong to a major political party. And this Court can look to its own history as a refutation of that premise. If this Court accepts the premise, it’s the end of the idea of an independent judiciary.

McConnell, for Delaware, sowed doubt about Adams’ sincerity to even become a judge, casting doubt on his right to bring this case.

Justice Alito posed this scenario to him:

ALITO: Suppose he looked up when the next vacancy would  occur on any of the covered courts and said, I plan to apply for that position. Would that be  sufficient?

FINGER: I think so. His big problem is that his actions do not line up with his words.

And Justice Thomas picked up on that with Adams’ lawyer, Finger.

THOMAS: What if he has a long history of saying, I’m going to do this and I’m going to do that, and never really gets around to doing it?

FINGER: Well, again — again, it would depend on the circumstances.

Then the argument shifted to the merits: does that requirement— that judges be either Republican or Democrat— violate freedom of association? 

Lawyer for Adams argued yes:

ADAMS: Again, these go back to the communist cases and the question of communists need not apply, which is not acceptable under the First Amendment…if you doing it just because you like it or just because you don’t like someone of another political party, that is no different than having a law that says, “you cannot apply.”

Side note: Our federal Constitution puts no constraints on the president to appoint judges and justices, aside from the advice and consent of the Senate. 

The justices seemed quite divided, and not just along ideological lines. 

Our second and final case today is a religious-freedom case. It involves several Muslim men born outside the United States who are now citizens or possess green cards. They sued FBI agents for placing their names onto a national registry. They say this was retaliation against them because they refused to inform on fellow Muslims.

The registry is the national “No Fly List,” and it prevents those on the list from flying from or to the United States, or even pass through American airspace. For one man, that meant he had to quit his job as a truck driver, because he couldn’t fly home after a one-way long distance delivery. 

One of the laws the men sued under is a federal law known by the acronym RFRA, and it stands for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

RFRA says that when the government has substantially burdened a person’s religious exercise, that person may obtain, in the words of the statute, “appropriate relief against a government.”

These men contend it is their free-exercise right to refuse to be informants … because the tenets of their Islamic faith compel them.

As often happens, words have meanings and when those meanings are unclear, litigation ensues. Here, it’s what does “appropriate relief” actually mean? And relief against whom?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued on behalf of the FBI Agents. The Muslim men sued the agents in both official and personal capacities.

KNEEDLER: RFRA’s remedy section provides only for appropriate relief against the government. Damages against an individual employee in his personal capacity are not relief against the government.

Kneedler argued that RFRA is for injunctive relief, not money damages. Meaning, just tell the government to stop doing what it’s doing. 

But that argument met strong headwinds in this from Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: One of the things that concerns me greatly is that RFRA was very concerned, at least Congress was, with the many families whose loved ones were being subjected to autopsies, in violation of their religious beliefs. And there was a lot of testimony before Congress about the fact that injunctive relief would not help those families.

KNEEDLER: Several things.

Kneedler answered that Congress wasn’t thinking about individual situations. Moreso the concern was removing burdens that applied across the board. 

Lawyer for the Muslim men, Ramzi Kassem, ran with Justice Sotomayor’s line of thinking.

KASSEM: This Court notedthat leading up to RFRA, Congress focused on autopsies performed on Hmong and Jewish people, in violation of their religious beliefs. Those were consummated injuries that only damages could remedy. Yet Petitioners’ interpretation of RFRA would leave those families with no claim.

The complicating factor for the government is that other federal civil rights laws do permit money damages. 

Yet, RFRA’s companion law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, does not allow money damages. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to lean toward finding a way to get monetary relief to the men. Their lawyer, of course, more than willing.

GORSUCH: So it would be sufficient for your purposes to, if we wrote an opinion, simply say we’re not relying on any presumptions of any kind anywhere. We’re looking at the text, the text refers us to the law of remedies and it allows the courts discretion to form sufficient relief to make a person whole.

KASSEM: Justice Gorsuch, as long as that opinion concludes with “and we affirm,” absolutely. (Laughter.)

GORSUCH: Naturally. I — I — I would assume no less. Thank you, counsel.

I didn’t hear much unity of concern among the justices. With only 8 on the bench right now, if they split 4-4, the lower court ruling would stand. That means the men can proceed with their litigation. 

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER: Time now to talk with David Bahnsen, financial analyst and advisor. David, good morning.

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

EICHER: Let’s begin with Congress, the virus relief package. The White House apparently has put $1.8 trillion on the table. The House, as we know, passed $2.2 trillion, so $400 billion separates them. Close, by Washington standards. And then I want to throw into the mix Fed Chairman Jay Powell’s statement that there’s a greater risk Congress will do too little than that Congress will do too much. What do you hear?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that Speaker Pelosi has ended up with this thing exactly where she wants it because if, indeed, there’s a blue wave in the election and you have a President Biden and Democrat control of the Senate, there’s nothing stopping them from doing another bill later, adding to this bill. They could easily add a trillion dollars on top of this later. But, of course, if they don’t win the election, they’ll at least get something near $2 trillion now. It kind of hedges their bet a little bit. 

The issue in the Senate, Nick, I can only tell you it’s not really going to be about the Senate. It’s going to be about the president. If the president’s going to go say he supports it, then a bunch of the Republican senators that are skeptical are going to have to get behind it and they don’t need that many. If they have Democrat support, they only need a certain number of Republicans to get behind it and they’re going to have that many. 

So, this thing is entirely in the president’s hand and in Speaker Pelosi’s hand, and it has been the whole time. And I think they’re closer to getting a deal done than they’ve been. I don’t think most people are going to like the deal, but I believe that right now you’ve got to put it over 50 percent that we’re going to get an announcement next week.

EICHER: But I would like to hear your thoughts on the Fed statement about the greater risk of doing too little than doing too much. I mean, we got to the end of fiscal 2020 with an annual deficit year-over-year three times greater than 2019—biggest deficit relative to GDP since 1945. How can Chairman Powell say that?

BAHNSEN: Well, first of all, I don’t think any of those numbers are remotely surprising. It was all over six months ago, and you’re running over trillion dollar deficits entering COVID. And then you take on a $2.2 trillion CARES Act and also have all the revenue decline that comes with a recession.

But what Powell was saying was the exact party line that has to be said if you’re a central banker, is you have to keep pressuring Congress to do something with fiscal stimulus because you don’t want all the pressure on you and doing something with monetary stimulus. 

And, option C, that there need not be anymore intervention fiscally or monetarily is not on the table. There’s nobody advocating that. So, all we’re debating is whether or not someone should do something and that someone is Congress or the Fed. But there’s no one saying don’t just do something, stand there. They’re all saying don’t just stand there, do something.

EICHER: Well, let’s talk about jobs. Maybe that’s a good transition. Continuing claims—ongoing claims for unemployment benefits—fell by more than one million to 11 million now. I guess we were as high as, what, 25 million at one point? So the continuing claims seems like the good story but the new claims, it’s just like it’s stuck at that mark of 800-thousand new claims per week. What’s your analysis?

BAHNSEN: Well, yeah, they are measuring two different things and I think you’re right that the continuing claims dropping is a good story. It’s certainly the one I’m following the most. You’ve got to remember that that $600/week supplement from the Feds ended and then there were various state options and so it’s different state-by-state as to what additional incentive existed to not go re-find work. But each week you’re finding people who maybe their benefits have gone away, they’re now incentivized to go out and find new jobs and then there’s also more layoffs as you have restaurants or other types of businesses—it is primarily in the hospitality industry—that were staying open and keeping payroll going from PPP. Now, those resources have run out. They decided they can’t stay profitable at 25 percent capacity or whatever the case may be, so then you get new rounds of layoffs. So, you have a push and a pull and it really is what it appears to be to you: The bad news of still having 800,000 a week of new people filing for unemployment and the good news of people who had been on unemployment before coming off of it. Both of those things are happening at once for the reasons that I’ve said.

EICHER: OK, on Wall Street: I’m curious, what is Wall Street saying about the election? Traders seem pretty good predictors of politics.

BAHNSEN: Here’s my take: I don’t really think there’s much of an alternative theory to this, but I’m open to one. There’s no way that the market is pricing in a Trump victory when his polling is worsening, not getting better. 

But then I will point out: I think it’s increasingly possible the Republicans could keep the Senate. There’s nothing the market would like more than that, a decisive victory in the presidency but the Republicans holding the Senate. So, I don’t know that that’s going to happen, but I think the market is well aware it’s at least a good possibility right now.

EICHER: Alright, let’s leave it there. David Bahnsen, financial analyst and advisor. Always good of you to carve out some time for us each week here to talk about this unprecedented economic crisis. David, thank you.

BAHNSEN: My pleasure, Nick. Good to be with you.

NICK EICHER: Today is Monday, October 12th. You’re listening to WORLD Radio and we’re so glad you are. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: the WORLD History Book.

Today, remembering two tragedies…and a miracle. Here’s Senior Correspondent Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: We begin today with the story of a World War I British nurse: Edith Cavell. She’s remembered for helping hundreds of Allied soldiers escape from enemy territory in Belgium.

TRAILER: He wants to be set free/ You shall be free.

Her bravery made her the subject of many plays and films, including the 1939 movie, Nurse Edith Cavell.

TRAILER: I have been hiding him. Would you help by taking him across the frontier? 

Before the war, Cavell spent years modernizing the nursing profession as first matron of the Berkendael Institute in Brussels. When Germany occupied Belgium, Cavell joined the Red Cross—and an underground group to help Belgian, French, and British soldiers make safe passage to the Netherlands. But the Germans discovered the effort, accused Cavell of treason and sentenced her to death for “aiding a hostile power.”

Despite cries from around the world for mercy on Cavell’s behalf, a German firing squad executed her on October 12th, 1915—105 years ago today.

AUDIO: [GERMAN FIRING SQUAD]

Her death shocked the world. Press and politicians alike expressed outrage that she was executed for a charge less than that of espionage.

Today, a statue of Cavell stands in London’s busy Trafalgar Square. Engraved are the words she uttered the night before her execution, read here by actress Judy Dakin in the play Edith Cavell: Facing the Silence.

PLAY: But this I would say, standing as I do in front of God and eternity: I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness toward anyone.

Turning now to another story of sacrifice and loss.

CNN: This is CNN Breaking News, U.S. officials in Bahrain today say suspected suicide bombers/ Cole badly damaged in a terrorist attack in Yemen/ American soldiers were killed, injured, missing…

Twenty years have passed since Muslim militants attacked the USS Cole. On October 12th, 2000—11 months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks—al Qaeda suicide bombers in the Yemeni port of Aden steered their small boat into the side of the naval destroyer. The explosion ripped a 40-foot-wide hole on the ship’s port side—killing 17 sailors. Wounding 39 more.

Sean Taitt was a supply clerk aboard the vessel, doing data entry at the time of the attack. 

TAITT: I was about to hit that enter key. I have no idea if I hit the enter key or not. What I do remember is when I came to, I was smelling JP-5. 

“JP-5” is jet fuel. Six days after the attack, rear Admiral Barry Black, chief of chaplains for the U.S. Navy, spoke at a memorial service for the fallen sailors.

BLACK: Today we are reminded that freedom is not free, and that the price we must sometimes pay is exceedingly high. 

From loss to survival beyond all odds: Tomorrow marks 10 years since the rescue of 33 gold and copper miners near Copiapó, Chile.

SOUND: [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

Those cheers came after an excruciating wait by the miners’ loved ones. The mine workers were trapped 2,300 feet underground—for 69 days.

It all started on August 5, 2010, when the main shaft of the San Jose gold and copper mine caved in. Seventeen days after the initial collapse, a rescue probe was retrieved with a note attached.

CBS: Relief for the families of 33 miners who have been trapped for more than two weeks. Today, a note reading “All 33 of us are fine” was found tied to a rescue probe.”

Rescuers sent food and supplies. Many of the men were Catholic and requested religious items, like rosaries and Bibles. Relatives prayed almost constantly above ground in a tent city dubbed “Camp Hope.”

One of the miners, José Henríquez, is a devout Christian who kept morale high with spiritual encouragement. He spoke in 2011 to The Christian Institute through a translator. 

HENRIQUEZ: We were singing and praying, and the result is that 22 received the Lord.

With their immediate health secure, recovery plans continued. Rescuers began boring three holes, and after a month, one of the machines reached an accessible chamber. They brought the trapped men out through the shaft, one by one.

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera celebrated by leading an overjoyed crowd of onlookers in the Chilean national anthem.

AUDIO: [NATIONAL ANTHEM]

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

NICK EICHER: Today is Monday, October 12th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

Commentator Andrée Seu Peterson now on the small details of physiology it’s easy to take for granted. Until you suffer without it!

ANDREE SEU PETERSON, COMMENTATOR: On November 16, 2016, at 7:08 in the morning after waking I suddenly became violently dizzy: the mirror, dresser, and chest of drawers were flying around the room. This spinning was accompanied by nausea, and I heaved (mostly water) into the trash can that my husband hurriedly swung to my side of the bed. 

There were no reasonable explanations or precursors—I hadn’t eaten too late or dined on food that disagreed with me. The very strangeness of the onset immediately made me think there was no reason why this may not be a permanent condition—like the way my friend Heidi lost her hearing in the left ear nine years ago with no warning whatsoever.

I started to consider how I might adapt myself to being bedridden for the remainder of my life. I would need a laptop for my writing. Subject matter would be limited, but I was open to the notion that God could provide a rich vein of material in the new kind of suffering.

After the first hour of retching I found that if I remained perfectly still on my back I was okay, even happy, so that when my neighbors paid visits in the course of the day, they were surprised to find a woman looking hale and ready at any moment to make dinner. The force keeping me immobilized was, as it were, an invisible cage, or like those electronic fences running the perimeter of people’s yards that keep the dog from straying out of bounds.

My daily Bible reading time with David was much extended, which I could not help but see a divine hand in, for many were the mornings I had protested my spouse’s requests to linger longer over some Old Testament passage, or had thrummed impatient fingers at his prolonged prayers. I made a mental connection to the 70 years of Sabbaths that God forced upon the land during the Babylonian occupation in compensation for Israel’s equal number of Sabbath years of neglect of the command to give the land repose for its yielding or crops.

I wasted the afternoon of Day 1 listening to the radio. At the start of Day 2 I lifted my head to see if the glass ceiling was still in place, which it was. I occasionally tried to sit up, in order to satisfy myself that I was indeed bedridden and not pretending. By the third day in the same pajamas I was wondering if I should start dressing in day clothes during the light hours, for psychological reasons and to make a distinction between times and seasons, like God does.

I’m feeling better now. A nurse friend explained the workings of the inner ear and how a renegade microscopic calcium crystal may break off and free float inside the labyrinth to foil the precise equilibrium God established, and what we take too casually as our ability to stand and walk. If Darwin had been in the room, the man would have repented.

I’m Andrée Seu Peterson.

NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: The vote, state level. We’ll note some significant races. 

And, how your online shopping and social media use could be changing after a recent report about Big Tech monopolies. 

That and more tomorrow. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Psalmist says, I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

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.