The World and Everything in It: October 9, 2023

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like me. I'm Tyler Reinhart, a college student at the University of Georgia. And I listen every day on my drive to school. I'd like to thank two of my high school teachers, Gordon Miners and Lexi Zaius for introducing me to the program three years ago. And my parents who encouraged me every step of the way. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! The Supreme Court fields a challenge to a government agency — along with a dispute over basic grammar.

JACKSON: I appreciate that ‘and’ can sometimes mean ‘or’ but this is not a conversation. This is a statute.

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

On the Monday Moneybeat: a really strong jobs report. So why the long face?

And the WORLD History Book. Controversy in the Nixon White House: the vice president’s out

CBS RADO NEWS: It was, President Nixon proclaimed, time for a new beginning for America. For the president it was a new beginning on patching up his tattered relations with Congress.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, October 9th. 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 news with Kent Covington.

SOUND: [Israel]

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Israel » Israel is at war.

SOUND: [Netanyahu]

Israel officially declared war against the Hamas terror group Sunday after suffering a massive coordinated terror attack.

ERDAN: This is Israel’s 9-11.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan:

ERDAN: What we are witnessing are war crimes, blatant, barbaric war crimes. Slaughtering civilians, abusing hostages, taking babies from their mothers. There are no words to describe such savagery.

Hamas militants also reportedly fired thousands 3,500 rockets into Israeli cities, killing hundreds and injuring thousands of people.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said all of the places Hamas is hiding in or acting from—quote—“we’ll turn them into rubble.” He warned citizens in those places to—his words … “get out of there now, because we're about to act everywhere with all our force."

Israel reaction » Israel’s Western allies are pledging steadfast support. President Biden declared over the weekend:

BIDEN: In this moment of tragedy, I want to say to them and to the world and to terrorists everywhere that the United States stands with Israel.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said said Israel has the right to defend itself—in his words—against "this barbarious attack."

And British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Sunday:

SUNAK: Now is not a time of equivocation, and I’m unequivocal. Hamas and the people who support Hamas are fully responsible for this appalling act of terror.

The biggest support of Hamas is Iran.

Afghanistan earthquake » The Taliban says more than 2,000 people are dead in western Afghanistan after powerful earthquakes flattened villages and buried residents under rubble.

A 6.3 magnitude earthquake and aftershocks also wounded scores of Afghans. Officials have set up beds outside of a hospital in the village of Herat to help treat a flood of victims.

If the death toll is confirmed, it would be one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history.

Mayor Adams wraps up Latin America trip » New York City Mayor Eric Adams is calling for illegal immigrants to have a “right to work” within the United States.

ADAMS: Nothing is more humane and nothing is more American than your right to work. And we believe that’s a right we should extend.

Adams heard there speaking from Colombia, his final stop on a 4-day tour of Latin America. The country has received millions of Venezuelans who have fled across the border in recent years.

He also traveled to Mexico and Ecuador to deliver the message in person that his city is at its breaking point, urging migrants not to come to New York.

ADAMS: This is a humanitarian crisis that we are facing.

The mayor wants migrants to be able to work and pay for their own housing. He says his city has absorbed more than 100,000 migrants over the past year at a cost of $10 million dollars a day.

Governors on migrant crisis » New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is also sounding alarms about the migrant crisis saying the federal government must do more to secure the border.

HOCHUL: It is too open right now. People coming from all over the world are finding their way through simply saying they need asylum, and the majority of them seem to be ending up in the streets of New York.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also called on the White House to step up.

PRITZKER: We need as logistical support that is help deciding where these folks ought to go because they can't all go to Chicago and New York and DC. They need to go in places where there's even more help to offer

Pritzker recently called the migrant surge “untenable.”

Amid a growing chorus of criticism from Democratic mayors and governors the Biden administration announced a stunning reversal last week, saying it will build 20 more miles of border wall in south Texas.

MUSIC: [Disney intro]

Disney poll » The world’s most iconic family entertainment company may have an image problem.

A new poll suggests only half of Americans still view Disney favorably.

After a string of box office bombs, falling Disney-Plus subscriptions, and slumping park attendance, Disney stock last week hit its lowest level in nearly 10 years.

Publicly, CEO Bob Iger has dismissed the notion that Disney’s political and LGBT activism has damaged its brand.

IGER: No. No, we see no sign of that at all.

But a new Rasmussen Reports survey of well over a thousand adults found that just 51% still have a favorable view of the company. While 40% now view it unfavorably

Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to view it unfavorably.

Just two months ago, Disney hired a male transgender social media star to model Minnie Mouse clothing.

ALTMAN: The bow with the dress and the shoes really sealed the deal. 

Recent animated children's movies featured things like a gay teen romance and a lesbian kiss.

AUDIO: To infinity and beyond. 

And last year, the company waged a public battle against parental rights legislation in Florida at the urging of LGBT activists.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: arguing over small words on the Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday morning, October 9th and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

And it is good to be back in the swing of things as the U.S. Supreme Court began its new term last week. The justices have accepted thirty-four cases so far for review. Ultimately I expect around twice that number yet to be accepted, give or take. And whatever the number turns out to be, we will cover them all here.

EICHER: So, two oral arguments today, and I love it that the first one turns on a question of grammar!

REICHARD: Yes, basically. Lawyers might say it’s about statutory construction and interpretation. Turns out, lawmakers who write laws don’t always write well or clearly.

EICHER: Maybe the Three Stooges can help illustrate grammar problems. Here’s a clip from an episode where they’re building an airplane, but it was too big.

They couldn’t get it out of the garage. So Moe hands Curly a saw, who goes to work on one of the wings.

MOE: Don’t saw the wings! You saw the garage!

CURLY: I see the garage. But I don’t saw the garage. You are speaking incorrectly. You are moidering (sic) the King’s English!

REICHARD: “Moidering” the King’s English! Supreme Court justices don’t want to do that! Now, they aren’t contending with “see”or “saw.” Rather, they contend with what Congress meant with the words “and” and “or.”

Too easy for the Supreme Court, you say? Well, the lower courts disagree on what it means. That’s why it’s at the high court now!

Of course this dispute is no laughing matter. The law in question is the First Step Act. President Donald Trump signed that one back in 2018. The aim was to reduce mass incarceration. In particular, those convicted of low-level, nonviolent drug crimes and those without a long rap sheet.

Specifically, the First Step Act gives judges the ability to be more lenient in sentencing—with conditions.

The defendant must not have a long criminal history, a previous serious offense, and a prior violent offense.

I see the problem: the word “and.” Condition A, condition B, and condition C.

REICHARD: Correct! (Nick, I’ve often said you have an honorary J.D.)

EICHER: Thank you, professor.

In this case, we have a convicted meth dealer named Mark Pulsifer. He received the statutory minimum penalty of 15 years for a subsequent drug offense.

But Pulsifer says the First Step Act qualifies him for a lesser sentence. He says he qualifies because he doesn’t meet all three of those requirements, all bundled together as you say, condition A, B, and C. His lawyer, Shay Dvoretzky:

DVORETZKY: The natural reading is that ‘and’ means ‘and.’ It joins together enumerated criteria. To be safety valve eligible, a defendant must not have (A), (B), and (C), all three. That's what ordinary grammar says and the surrounding text confirms.

The government needs ‘and’ to mean ‘or’ or it needs the court to insert the words ‘does not have’ into the statute three times. But asking for a rewrite isn't statutory interpretation.

REICHARD: The federal government disagrees that “and” means “and” in the statute. Assistant to the Solicitor General, Frederick Liu argues it actually means “or.”

In that way of reading the law, Pulsifer is not eligible for a reduced sentence. You’ll hear Liu mention “points.” That refers to a system that designates the seriousness of the crime.

LIU: What’s inexplicable about Petitioner’s reading is that it would disqualify only those defendants with a rare combination of characteristics, including a prior violent offense of exactly two points. So a defendant convicted of a violent offense would actually prefer to receive a longer sentence worth three points to avoid being disqualified. That makes no sense.

EICHER: To try to make it make sense, Justice Elena Kagan lobbed a hypothetical at Dvoretzky, the lawyer for the drug dealer.

KAGAN: So you’re going in for a medical test and you receive something from the hospital, and it says, to receive this test, the patient should not, and then, you know, it has a list of things that the patient shouldn’t do, and it says the patient shouldn’t eat any food, drink any liquids, and smoke. So I’m going to assume…that you’re not a smoker. Do you feel perfectly able to eat and drink as much as you want?

DVORETZKY: No. And that is a situation where I would hear that “and” to be an “or”...

More or less conceding the point on the hypothetical, but saying the statute is different.

KAGAN: Obviously, because the context tells you that it's an "or" rather than an "and," that -- and -- and -- and the reason that it's different from an example like "drink and drive," is there's something that connects those two things so that we know that the harm comes from the relationship between the two, whereas, in this case, we know that the harm follows from any one of the things. So either way you’re using context to establish meaning, aren’t you?

Questioning the government’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

JACKSON: I appreciate that ‘and’ can sometimes mean ‘or’ but this is not a conversation. This is a statute. And it’s a criminal statute with huge implications for the lives and well-being of the people who come through the system. And so I guess what I’m trying to understand is why the imprecision in this statute, the fact that you say that there are two textually grammatically possible readings. Why doesn’t that count against the government?

REICHARD: She’s referring to the Rule of Lenity. That says if a criminal statute isn’t clear, then it must be read in favor of the defendant. And if the judges of multiple appellate courts can’t figure it out, how’s a defendant supposed to figure it out? Now it’s up to the justices to do that.

EICHER: And. we wish them well.

On to our second argument: this one involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You’ll hear it by the initialism: C-F-P-B, and you’ll hear it a lot.

REICHARD: Right, that agency was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Here she is last November at the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, throwing shade at her political opponents along the way:

WARREN: So since it was created by Congress just over 10 years ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, has forced financial institutions to return more than $13 billion directly to people they cheated. This is government that works for the people, literally. Now, the banks don't like losing $13 billion. They don't like being forced to shut down scams. So they and their Republican friends attack the CFPB. And the latest attack has come out of the Republicans “go-to” court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court has ruled that the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional, because it does not receive annual appropriations from Congress.

EICHER: Here’re the facts of the case now before the Supreme Court.

A group of lenders was unhappy about a rule CFPB made in 2017. The rule had to do with payday lenders trying to withdraw money from borrowers’ bank accounts. Specifically, what happens after they make two attempts and fail, because there’s not enough money in the borrower’s account.

So the lenders sued the CFPB, arguing the rule is void because they say the agency is unconstitutional.

REICHARD: Right, they say the CFPB’s funding is all wrong, saying it should get money allocated by Congress, not straight from the Federal Reserve as it does now.

Lawyer for the lenders Noel Francisco argued that Article I of the Constitution means annual appropriations, not a perpetual funding source:

FRANCISCO: Look, everybody knew what was going on in 2010. The 2010 Congress knew that there would come a time when future Congresses didn't look so favorably upon the CFPB, and they wanted to insulate a future CFPB from political pressure from a future Congress, and that's precisely why they adopted the funding regime that they adopted. But future Congresses are supposed to have the ability to check the President through a continuing power of the purse. It's meant to be a continuing check on executive power.

EICHER: But US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that history is on the side of the CFPB:

PRELOGAR: The first Congress did exactly this with the very first agency it created, the Customs Service, and the same is true for other founding-era agencies, including the Post Office, the National Mint, the Patent Office, revenue officers, and the National Bank. The CFPB's appropriation fits squarely within this unbroken line of historical practice.

A strong argument that seemed to convince most of the justices. But like any good lawyer, Francisco didn’t give up:

FRANCISCO: One of Congress's most important checks on executive power is its power of the purse. That's why Alexander Hamilton said that the unification of sword and purse was the very definition of tyranny. This case reflects precisely that feared unification. The government agrees that Congress couldn't just authorize the executive branch to spend whatever it wants. But that's effectively what Congress did here. If it can do that, then it can authorize the President to spend whatever he deems reasonably necessary as long as he doesn't exceed $10 trillion, and that would work a sea change in the separation of powers.

He fielded a lot more questions than did the government lawyer defending CFPB. And not exactly the helpful sort of questions to give him hope for a win.

For example, this from Justice Clarence Thomas on the funding method:

THOMAS: I get your point that this is different, that it’s unique, that it’s odd, that they’ve never gone this far. But not having gone this far is not a constitutional problem.

And Justice Kagan, comparing this agency’s funding method with that of the Federal Reserve:

KAGAN: Sure seems that on your view, the federal reserve would be unconstitutional.

REICHARD: Still, Justice Samuel Alito asked Prelogar for the government that perennial question in the law:

ALITO: I just want to understand what you think the limiting principle is. Let's take the FTC, which I think had a budget of $430 million. So let's say there's a law that allocates forever -- up to $1 billion adjusted for inflation to the FTC to use as the FTC sees fit. Would that be consistent with the Appropriations Clause?

As the FTC “sees fit.” That’s a bit too much authority, and Prelogar had to answer. not likely.

Francisco for the lenders said this funding is perpetual, not subject to yearly appropriations process as required by the Constitution.

I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the eventual ruling here, in favor of the funding structure of the agency.

KAVANAUGH: The word “perpetual.” I'm having trouble with because it implies that it's entrenched and that a future Congress couldn't change it. But Congress could change it tomorrow and there's nothing perpetual or permanent about this.

That’ll probably carry the day, and the CFPB will live on, at least on the funding aspect. Until Congress changes it, or someone else brings a successful challenge. And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Alright, time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm the Bunsen group. He is here now, David, good morning.

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

EICHER: Alright, let's begin with a stellar jobs report from September: 336,000 jobs, an upward revision of the August jobs figure, the strongest gains since January unemployment rate holding steady again below 4% 3.8 give or take. But no matter where you read the story, David, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, doesn't really matter, the theme is pretty uniform: “This is a really nice jobs report but I wonder what the Fed is going to think.” It's just an odd situation, is it not? It would seem this report is an unalloyed good thing, or is there something I'm missing?

BAHNSEN: Well, but that's the point is that there is this thinking that good news is bad for the Fed purposes, because the Fed is trying to, quote unquote, slow down the economy because of the incredibly errant belief that growth and inflation are one and the same, and therefore people having jobs becomes inflationary. And it is patently false. It's been wrong for 50 years when this Phillips Curve ideology was first developed, the notion that there was a trade-off between employment and inflation that had to be managed, and that lower unemployment could create higher inflation, and higher unemployment could create lower inflation. It's a silly concept. 

Now, economically, I can explain why I believe it's silly out of my understanding of what inflation is, which is too much money chasing too few goods and services. And I believe that more workers creates more goods and services. And so it's a supply side argument. But nevertheless, that's not the framework that the Fed talks about. And so the media is running with the idea that oh, a hot jobs report may make the Fed more inclined to keep rates going higher. 

You noticed on Friday that the stock market had dropped a couple 100 points right when the report came out, and then it closed up over 300 points. So you had a 550 point swing up in the market. That is not because the media was wrong to wonder how the Fed feels about the unemployment number, all things being equal, the Fed is very clear, they wish more people were losing their job. And they say so explicitly, that we need to keep rates higher until we can see some of these economic data points get worse. 

The reason, though, that I believe the market shrugged it off is something called the proxy funds rate. It's actually put out by the Fed, I didn't make this up and I didn't get 10 of my economic friends together to make it up. It's created by the San Francisco Federal Reserve. And it's uses 12 different metrics to kind of get an idea like, okay, the Fed sets what's called the Fed funds rate. That's the policy rate. That's what we all refer to about what the Feds doing with rates. And they have it set right now between five and a quarter and five and a half percent. And most interest rates are somehow referenced off of that rate, okay? The proxy rate is what the Feds looking at from 12 different metrics of real Treasury rates, mortgage rates, credit spreads different data points that tell them what effectively, the rate really is. And that's it 7%. So more or less, all that means is there's an extra one and a half percent in reality of tightening going on, above and beyond the Fed. So that's why I think that it's already been priced in the tightening has already been done for the fed by financial markets. And this is creating a real pickle for the Fed.

EICHER: Alright, David. Well, we've had so much hot news to cover over the past several months, we've gotten away from listener questions, but a few things have come in unsolicited that I think touch on newsy or themes that I'd like to drop a couple of questions in that I think are broadly interesting. So here's the first one. It comes from Timothy Deal of Auburn, Indiana. His question has to do with our discussion last week of the United Auto Workers strike and that fiery UAW rhetoric. He says he agrees with your analysis, but he's also having a hard time seeing corporate management as the good guys here. Listen:

TIMOTHY DEAL: I don't really have a good answer to the popular narrative that CEOs and management are really just worried about investors, that CEOs can make mistakes, and they don't get a pay cut or anything. And so it's always the labor people who have to suffer under low wages and have to go on strike, which we see in multiple industries these days. So I guess my question is, if I was in a conversation with some of my peers who also hear this kind of narrative, how would you express the purpose of management investors and can you give us some good examples of wise stewardship in any companies today that would be a good example of how upper management, how working for your investors is supposed to work?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I mean, I think that when we think about the divide between labor and capital, that we can do two things at once. we can hold our ground about truth and proper ideology, that there need not be class warfare between the two, and at the same time, obviously, use rhetoric that will be effective to the audience that we're speaking to. And the notion that CEOs don't care about workers, I think comes from a bad understanding of self-interest, that somehow it would be good for capital or good for management, to have workers disgruntled. There are all at once to incentives that, you know, I own a business, and I all at once need to pay people an amount that doesn't bankrupt my company, and at the same time incentivizes their maximum productivity and retention. If they're good workers, I want to keep them and I can't keep them if I underpaid them, or treat them poorly. So these interests have to be understood. And this is why I did that economics course. And I care so much for people to really get the basics of how the world works. 

EICHER: Okay. And a second question, David Pete Daikeler, who's a listener in North Carolina, he calls attention to what he sees as a silent depression in our economy specifically. And for example, during the Great Depression, he says, houses were about three times the average salary; today, it's eight times he says, reading from his email, "My wife and I did very well coming out of the late 1960s, early 70s. And we just tried to tackle each challenge as it came. Now we have two 20 year olds who are so smart, but all their knowledge causes them to become overwhelmed by the economy and global affairs. Is there a silent depression that the rich can't see because we don't experience it?" And, David, please take your time and answer this one thoroughly. I know it's a long answer for you, so go ahead and have at it.

BAHNSEN: Well, there's kind of a few different topics that are sort of blended together in the question, and I think it's better when they get unpacked a little because I think the silent depression, so to speak, referring to the kind of alienation that I think exists throughout society right now is undeniable. It's very concerning, and I've done significant research on it and am convinced that it is almost always related to a decline in faith, family, friends and work, and particularly work. And so not so much at age 20, but more age 24 to people in the young 30s, there is significantly happier conditions for people who are in jobs and careers they like versus, and this is especially true, much more true with males, those that are not working, and don't feel that same purpose. And so that's kind of a spiritual and sociological dynamic. It's actually a big subject in the new book I have coming out early next year. But what he's really getting at I think the heart of the question is, do young people just simply feel overwhelmed with anxiety by the fact that entry into a new house is so much more expensive, that student debt, I don't think he mentioned, but that's a big part of it. So it's important to point out that A, he's 100%, right. For the number one expense people have, which is shelter, the percentage of income that the people have to spend on things like rent, or a first mortgage is much higher than it's ever been and it should be. 

Now, here's the problem. It's their fault. And I don't mean this mom and dad. But I mean, all the other moms and dads, that all believe that a permanently escalating home price is supposed to be this wonderful thing. And we have this cult of home price appreciation that's totally bipartisan. I think it's economically absurd. And it's created this unaffordability. We have totally inadequate supply, we can't get new homes built because of all the zoning and environmental regulations. And then now mortgage rates have moved way higher. But when mortgage rates were so so low for 12 years, all that did is push prices higher, artificially, and made home prices less affordable for young people. And so my belief is that I don't know that it's created a depression, the problem is it's created a delta between the top 20-30% And the bottom 50% that is really significant. 

Look, the top 20% of performers, where there's the most talent, skill, knowledge, they're not letting that slow them down, they're still out getting great jobs, working so hard. But not everyone's able to be the top 20% because of math. And it has definitely created a sociological, and yes, an emotional divide. So I'm very, very sensitive to it. But I think a huge part of the problem is parents that continue to support the scam of higher education. And then a kid gets left for $250,000 in debt and did not get an education that justifies it. And then the prices of homes being far too high, relative to what a good earner with a decent job in their mid-20s, late-20s can be expected to afford. So those are the two major contributions to that aspect of the economic anxiety. But even then, I really do believe that's separate when you use the word depression, I think that's separate from the spiritual and existential alienation that I think is taking place, which I'm convinced is coming from inadequate purpose. And of course, as a Christian, I'm quite convinced that comes from people not having their telos identified in Christ.

EICHER: Alright, David Bahnsen is founder managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bahnson group. You can keep up with David at his personal website, which is bahnsen.com his weekly Dividend Cafe newsletter, you can find that dividendcafe.com David, thanks so much. We will see you next week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, October 9th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book. This week: a sitting U.S. president nominates a new vice president. But first, the U.S. government builds the most secure prison—and perhaps most infamous prison in the world.

Here’s WORLD Radio intern, Emma Perley.

EMMA PERLEY, INTERN: During the American Civil War, Alcatraz island had been a military fort near San Francisco, California. By 1907, it had transformed into a military prison.

In 1933, construction begins for a federal penitentiary. Steel reinforced concrete cell blocks reach three stories high with over 600 cells. The prison opens in 1934, meant for the most brutal and ruthless inmates.

In April 1954, burglar, carjacker, and self-described “thug” Bob Luke is sent to Alcatraz for 12 years. Audio here from an Obasmedia video posted to YouTube.

DOCUMENTARY: Course we all had heard of Alcatraz. It was gonna be the end of the line.

There is no escape behind the unbreakable steel bars. Alcatraz has a unique system where the doors don’t lock with keys. Instead, prison guards shut the cell doors through a manually operated lever located at the end of the corridor.

DOCUMENTARY: Rack em! [SOUND OF PRISON DOORS CLOSE]Alcatraz really was, in every sense of the word, “the slammer.”

It’s like being in a tomb. You just know this is gonna be it for a while.

Bob never thinks about escape. Those who try are always hauled back and thrown into solitary confinement. That is, until 1962.

NEWSREEL: A spoon proves mightier than the bars at supposedly escape proof Alcatraz prison. Three bank robbers serving long terms scratched their way through grills covering an air vent, climbed a drainage pipe, and disappeared from the forbidding rock in San Francisco bay.

The escaped prisoners are never found and presumed dead, most likely swept out to sea by a strong current. But some maintain they’d pulled off one of the most infamous prison breaks ever. Audio here from a 1962 newsreel:

NEWSREEL: The escape triggered the greatest manhunt in San Francisco’s history.

The escape illustrated the need to restore the water-damaged concrete walls. But instead officials shut Alcatraz Penitentiary down for good in 1963. It now exists as a crumbling monument to the Great Depression era of organized crime, where super gangsters met their match—and their fate.

Next, October 12th, 1973…U.S. President Richard Nixon stands at a podium in the White House East Room as millions of Americans tune in by radio and television.

NIXON: [APPLAUSE] Our distinguished guests, I proudly present to you the man whose name I will submit to the Congress of the United States for confirmation as the vice president of the United States…Congressman Gerald Ford of Michigan. 

Just two days earlier, Spiro Agnew had stepped down as Nixon’s vice president, pleading “no contest” to tax evasion charges. Ford’s nomination surprises many…including the House Minority Leader himself.

FORD: Mr. President, I'm deeply honored. And I am extremely grateful. And I'm terribly humble(d).

Ford’s confirmation easily moves through both houses of Congress. Nearly 97% of the Senate and 92% of the House of Representatives support his nomination. On December 6th, 1973, Gerald Ford becomes the 40th Vice President of the United States.

FORD: I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln (LAUGHTER). My addresses will never be as eloquent as Mr. Lincoln's. But I will do my very best to equal his brevity and his plain speaking…

Ford tells his wife that the vice presidency will be “a nice conclusion” to his career. But less than a year later Vice President Ford becomes President Ford after Richard Nixon resigns rather than face impeachment. Nixon had served for five years.

Ford is the only president in American history to have never been elected President nor Vice President. 

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: The Palestinian offensive against Israel and Israel’s response. What’s next? And, a woman who turned to art after suffering a life-threatening illness. 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.

The Bible records that Paul and Silas were in jail when an earthquake opened the doors. “When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” —Acts chapter 16, verses 27 through 31.

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.