The World and Everything in It: September 16, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

LINDSAT MAST, HOST: Good morning!

Today on Washington Wednesday: A wider war, a stalemate over AI speed limits, and a more European Canada.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That and a lightning round with Hunter Baker.

Also today, WORLD Tour: Voters in Germany signal they want a change.

Later: Making American history come alive for the next generation.

GUIDE: Three … two … one … Huzzah

And WORLD Commentator Cal Thomas on wild predictions that never came to be.

MAST: It’s Wednesday, September 16th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Lindsay Mast.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump says 2024 assassination attempt a “Democrat plot” » President Trump says the 2024 attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania was a political plot. In a social media post Tuesday, he wrote that the shooting was—quote—“all a Democrat Plot, to get me out of the Election, that failed.”

He also blamed the FBI under President Biden, and said—quote—“new info[rmation] was just found.” But he did not say specifically what he was referring to.

A Secret Service sniper killed the 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Crooks. The FBI concluded last year that he acted alone. And current Director Kash Patel told senators Tuesday:

PATEL: We looked at some twenty-seven devices, um, uh, exfiltrated all the data off of them, looked for connections to individuals in America and overseas, and we found no evidence, um, that that individual was literally even speaking, uh, to any other human being other than his parents who he resided with.

Investigators say they still don’t have a motive for the shooting. A bullet struck Trump in the ear and killed a man seated behind him at the campaign event.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley released a batch of FBI records Tuesday. One, an interview with Crooks' father, says an anonymous donor paid to have his body cremated. Those records also stated that the gunman’s father gave him a rifle the morning of the attack, believing he was going to a shooting range.

Patel testimony » Kash Patel during Tuesday testimony, also touted what he said are the administration’s accomplishments in cracking down on crime.

PATEL:  This has been the most prolific run of crime reduction in the United States history. The FBI has arrested 54,000 violent crime- criminals. That's up 90% from the 18-month year period prior to that.

But Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee weren’t impressed with the FBI’s record under Patel. The top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Dick Durbin:

DURBIN:  Under Mr. Patel's failed leadership, decades of efforts to modernize and reform the FBI are being undone, and the Bureau has been reshaped as a political weapon against President Trump's political enemies

Republicans say it’s just the opposite that Patel has been undoing the politicization of the agency that took place under the Biden administration.

Trump criticizes SCOTUS » President Trump is blasting the Supreme Court over mail-in voting. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin reports:

KRISTEN FLAVIN: The Supreme Court this week refused to lift a lower court block on a new Postal Service rule for this year's elections. It would have put unique barcodes on ballot envelopes and voter names in a federal portal. Trump said the rule was aimed at detecting voter fraud.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to lift the block was unsigned, and said the government is unlikely to succeed.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. But none of the three justices that Trump appointed joined them in that dissent.

The president wrote: These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

The case continues, but the block runs through Election Day.

For WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin.

U.S. acknowledges space weapons » The United States has put weapons in orbit. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said so at a conference in Maryland. No American official had ever said the weapons were already up there.

Meink called them on-orbit space control weapons, able to defend American satellites from attack. He would not say what they are, or whether they've ever been tested.

Weapons in orbit are not illegal. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bars only nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

The Pentagon has warned for years that China and Russia are developing satellite-killers.

NATO jet shoots down drone over Lithuania » Russia's war with Ukraine has seen a dangerous escalation.

Some are worried that several recent incidents risk pulling NATO countries into the war.

The European Union's top diplomat Kajav Kallas outlined those incidents:

KALLAS: Russian warship fired flares at Danish helicopter. NATO jets had to shoot down a drone over Lithuania. Russia struck a passenger train near the border with Ukraine. And Poland pulled a drone from its waters. We need to be clear-eyed. Those are not accidents.

She called those attempts to test and weaken the resolve of NATO, which she says will not be shaken.

She also called for new sanctions against Russia and continued targeting of Russia's so-called shadow fleet responsible for illegal oil shipments.

Ukraine-Russia, diesel » Meanwhile:

ZELENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he's willing to heed President Trump's calls to hold off any further strikes against Russian energy infrastructure if Moscow agrees to do the same. Trump says those strikes are causing a global diesel shortage.

PESKOV: [Speaking Russian]

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Russia is also prepared to stand down attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, but later added that a mutual moratorium won't be enough to solve the diesel shortage.

I'm Kent Covington.

Coming up: state elections in Germany this weekend will test the reach of the country’s right-wing surge. Plus, an All-American road trip to mark the nation’s 250th.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Wednesday, September 16. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: And I’m Lindsay Mast. Time now for Washington Wednesday, and joining us is political scientist and WORLD Opinions contributor Hunter Baker. Hunter is a senior fellow for civic renewal and religious liberty at First Liberty Institute. Hunter, good morning.

HUNTER BAKER: Good morning.

MAST: Well, issue one today: the war keeps widening. Let’s begin with Iran. When this war began in late February, President Trump projected a conflict that could be over in four to six weeks. Here we are, more than six months later.

The Houthis have now seized key territory around the Bab el Mandeb, so Iran and its allies now have leverage around two critical energy corridors there and the Strait of Hormuz, and just yesterday the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the war through August 1 at $38 billion.

Of course, the administration can point to real military achievements, but instead of drawing this down, there’s now another front. Hunter, how serious is this as a matter of policy and, more narrowly, politically?

BAKER: One of the things that I have been thinking about with regard to this was the beginning of the first Gulf War. Probably a lot of our listeners haven’t thought that much about George H. W. Bush, but when the first George Bush was president, we went to Iraq to fight, and I think that probably everybody who was an adult at that time remembers that Bush came on to assure the American people that this would not be another Vietnam, and they had a very clear plan to execute.

Some people criticized Bush for not staying there longer, but he did what he set out to do. The path to victory was clear, and they achieved it.

This time, by contrast, the president made an announcement that it would be over very quickly, and the opposite has been the case. Now, rationally speaking, Iran should probably fold. Iran and their allies should probably fold, but they know that the American people are not patient in this regard, that we have a very low tolerance for pain with regard to these kind of international adventures, and they’re going to fight it out.

And I remember years ago Fareed Zakaria talking about how in public policy we should really be able to resolve most of the questions because most of them are just sort of matters of prudence, and we can compromise. That’s not the case here.

This is a theological issue for Iran’s leaders and for these allies of theirs, and so for them, it’s a matter of honor. It’s a matter of faith, and they’re going to hold out absolutely as long as they can, even though we’re imposing a tremendous amount of pain on them.

EICHER: Hunter, issue two: Who sets the speed limit for AI? Let’s turn to artificial intelligence. Washington and Silicon Valley locked in a fierce debate over whether to slow down AI development before it outpaces control.

Well, now we have the Federal Trade Commission warning that granting big tech companies room to coordinate safety rules could protect incumbents under the guise of regulation. Now, that is exactly a statement of regulatory capture coming straight from the FTC.

Specifically, that means that when industry asks government to regulate, the regulation can wind up protecting companies that are already on top in the race for dominance.

So, how do you read this? Is this that old Washington story of regulatory capture, or is there a real governance crisis here that requires the federal government to get involved?

BAKER: It is a classic, an old old story of industries getting big and then kind of pulling the ladder up behind them so that others cannot compete. So certainly, certainly that is something that happens.

In this case, I think it’s a little more complex. I think that we should really be worried less about the data centers. Maybe we should go ahead and be building out the data centers and the infrastructure, and be more worried about the capabilities of the AI, or at least the capabilities of the AI in an uncontrolled environment.

We’re very very worried that the AI could run free, could hack all kinds of systems, could unleash something that is extremely problematic. So, if that’s what they want, if they want to have those kind of controls, then I think we should do that.

And the other thing I’d say is that they’re worried about legal liability as well. They probably would like to get the government involved and to make rules so that they would have clear guidance to maybe prevent them from being so suable.

MAST: Well, President Xi, of course, is coming to Washington next week, and AI is expected to be on the agenda there. Is an AI agreement with China remotely comparable to nuclear arms control, or are verification and the commercial incentives simply too different do you think?

BAKER: It’s a really good question. Nuclear missiles, I think, in the age of the satellite technology that we have, it’s big. It’s physical. You can keep track of it.

With AI, I’m not sure. I don’t know how well you can know what somebody else is doing in the area of AI. And I also think that China—I told you this line that stuck with me from a China expert I know—that they’re committed to winning without fighting.

AI seems like a good way to win without fighting. I could really see them trying to be the winners of kind of the AI race while pretending to honor various hurdles that we try to put into place.

EICHER: Hey, can I just ask a yes/no on this because I think this is what we were coming around to. Can you trust China to make that agreement? This is just yes or no.

BAKER: If I were the president, I would not.

EICHER: We’ll go with no. All right. Issue three. Whoa, Canada.

The economic and strategic relationship between the United States and Canada has been one of the most durable features of the Western alliance, but now trade talks, of course, have broken down.

The Wall Street Journal reporting Canadian and European officials are now talking about creating some form of associate membership for Canada. Carney’s careful what he calls that. He says Canada is not seeking to become an EU member. He wants a unique alliance with Europe.

So the question is, has President Trump’s pressure created any kind of negotiating leverage over Canada, or do you think he’s pushed Canada too far and toward the most consequential strategic realignment in its history?

BAKER: There are some different levels to this. Number one is that Trump is not popular in Canada, and I think that Mark Carney knows that it is really good politics to be seen as standing up to Donald Trump.

In fact, when Trump had his language about Canada becoming the 51st state, I think that that actually helped to propel Mark Carney to victory over his more conservative opponent in that last race. So first is the politics.

Now the second is the real economic side of it. It’s true that Canada has many sort of European sensibilities; that they are more collectivist and more regulatory in nature than we are, and so there are some sympathies there.

But I have to say that pushing aside the U.S. for sort of a dominant alliance with the European countries, I think, is madness for Canada. And I’m not sure that he really means it. I mean, this may be a more sophisticated version of renaming Lake Ontario from Mark Carney.

You know what I would do if I was Mark Carney, I would wait it out for a couple of years, and things are going to normalize between Canada and the next U.S. president, whoever that is. I think.

MAST: All right, Hunter, time for the lightning round. First up, the Texas Senate race.

A Republican-aligned group now expects to spend at least 50 million dollars supporting Ken Paxton against Democrat James Talarico. The president helped determine the nominee. Now he’s going to have to spend precious party money to get him across the finish line.

Who actually bears responsibility for candidate quality in a modern political party? The primary electorate, the party establishment, or the political leader whose endorsement helped settle the primary?

BAKER: Well, I said it before on this podcast, and I’m going to say it again because it bears repeating. The quarterback, the Republican quarterback in the Senate for sort of managing and coordinating these races, was Tim Scott.

And when it came time to make this endorsement, Tim Scott reportedly called Trump and asked him not to endorse Ken Paxton, and yet he did it anyway. It’s Trump’s fault. It’s his responsibility.

MAST: All right, onto the child tax credit. A bipartisan House bill would lower the earnings threshold for the refundable credit from $2,500 to $1. Supporters say that means benefits begin with the first dollar of work.

At $1, is that still meaningfully a work requirement, or has Congress essentially removed the work test?

BAKER: It’s not a good work requirement. I think that what they’re thinking is that they want to reward the pure stay-at-home parent.

But I think about the impact that this would have. There are probably a lot of people, sort of in the underclass, lower class, lower middle class, who are attracted to work for this reason. And work is good. You can bring David Bahnsen back on. Work is good for human beings.

EICHER: It’s our purpose.

BAKER: That’s right. So I think that anything that sort of lessens that incentive is probably a bad idea.

EICHER: All right, last one: Missouri congressional maps. Republicans redrew these mid-decade. Voters used that new map in the August primary, and then the courts came back and put the state back on the old map for November.

So you’ve got two different sets of districts for one election. Okay, the Supreme Court decided to leave that alone.

So Hunter, here it is. Given how tight the balance of power is in the House, how big a deal might this be on a scale of one to 10? One being Speaker Jeffries, 10 being Speaker Johnson.

BAKER: I think it’s going to be Speaker Jeffries regardless of the tinkering that occurs in Missouri.

EICHER: So five.

BAKER: It’s going to be Speaker Jeffries. I don’t think that this little bit of gerrymandering is going to make that difference.

EICHER: All right, Hunter Baker, Senior Fellow for Civic Renewal and Religious Liberty at the First Liberty Institute. Hunter, thank you.

BAKER: Fun as always, guys. Thank you.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: World Tour.

Local elections this weekend in Germany will help show whether voters there are swinging further to the right, and test a post-War political firewall.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s a legal mechanism keeping political parties on the fringes from ever gaining control again.

WORLD’s Global Desk Chief Jenny Lind Schmitt has this report.

JENNY LIND SCHMITT: For over three quarters of a century, there has been one overarching rule in German politics: Die Brandmauer. The Firewall.

After World War II, mainstream political parties made a pact to exclude subsequent hard right parties from being part of any coalition government. They wanted to keep the successors of the Nazis from ever regaining power.

That idea has continued to be applied to current parties on the far left and the far right. Phillip Turle of France 24 explains:

TURLE: The mainstream parties come together quite often to keep these far-right parties or far-left parties out of power. And therefore, even though those parties have different political views, uh different political standings, they may not agree with each other on policies that need to be taken, uh they will come together to keep uh the far-out parties out of office.

But last week voters in a regional election in Saxony-Anhalt shocked the country. The controversial AfD–Alternative for Germany–party got 44% of the vote. Not an absolute majority, but a big upset.

People in Berlin took to the streets in protest.

SOUND: [Protest]

The AfD is considered far-right. It has called for stricter borders, distance from the EU, remigration of undocumented migrants, a traditional definition of marriage, and a better relationship with Russia. Its position on the incompatibility of Islam with German culture resulted in the opposition labeling it far-right.

Last week’s results suggest those platforms resonate with more people than expected. Here’s Ulrich Siegmund, the leading AfD candidate in Saxony-Anhalt speaking on German television after the vote.

SIEGMUND: [Speaking German]

He says, this is a very clear mandate. It could hardly be clearer. This is the best election result in Saxony-Anhalt since 19-90.

But other Germans see the Saxony-Anhalt vote as a referendum on Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

ROUGH: The governing parties are rather unpopular.

That’s Peter Rough of the Hudson Institute.

ROUGH: Chancellor Merz himself is the most unpopular chancellor in the modern German history. His personal approval ratings are in the teens. And Germany is struggling against a wave of deindustrialization. The establishment has really taken it on the chin.

Regardless of the reasons for the result, forming a state government led by AfD will be a challenge.

ROUGH: The German conservatives have made clear that they will not govern with the populist AFD. They view them as a threat for historical reasons. And so that forces them into coalitions with ideological left-leaning or left-wing parties, which... creates really an incoherence.

One way forward for the AfD to govern in Saxony-Anhalt would be to work with the left-wing BSW party. The two groups share views on restricting immigration and working with Russia, but not much else. That’s a recipe for political stalemate and further voter frustration.

For decades, the establishment meant coalitions across “Die Mitte”: The Middle: between the two mainstream parties–center left and center right. But with a stagnant economy, many Germans seem ready to change the status quo.

Volker Resing is a German journalist and political analyst.

RESING: (German) Saxony-Anhalt, there was a landslide victory for the AfD, the Alternative for Germany. In fact, the party’s lead candidate, Siegmund, created a positive atmosphere in the state—one that differed from the AfD’s usual approach—and that resonated with voters. He won over non-voters in particular. Forty percent of AfD voters did not vote five years ago.

He says the AfD succeeded in Saxony-Anhalt largely because Ulrich Siegmund was able to mobilize non-voters. Forty percent of voters in this election did not vote in the last one five years ago.

The AfD has been growing steadily stronger over the last decade, and many in Merz’s CDU party think it’s time for him to open discussions with them.

RESING: (German) If Friedrich Merz were to start talking to the AfD, cooperating with it, and, for example, ousting the SPD from the government—it would lead to massive divisions, if not a split within the CDU.

But Resing says that could lead to massive divisions or potentially, a split in the CDU. Risky, given upcoming state elections in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

ROUGH: In both states, the AFD is scheduled to do well. Right now, the opinion polls still have the CDU just hanging on by a very thin slice to the first place in Berlin. But if those two elections go very poorly for the CDU, then we'll see, what are already grumblings in the CDU, only pick up heading into 2027.

Those elections are scheduled for Sunday. That’s this week’s WORLD Tour, I’m Jenny Lind Schmitt.

NICK EICHER, HOST: An emu led police in Ramapo, New York, on a chase through a local neighborhood.

The bird escaped from a petting zoo, and took off on foot.

Police tracked the flightless bird from above using a drone, while officers tried boxing him in on the ground.

Eventually, it was Sergeant Michael Anton who lassoed the runaway bird.

The department later explained, quoting from the report:

They don’t know why the chicken crossed the road, but the emu crossed because Sergeant Anton gave it no choice.

The bird is back at the petting zoo—where no doubt he reconsidered the value of the free-range lifestyle.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Wednesday, September 16th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: And I’m Lindsay Mast.

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: an American road trip.

To celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, WORLD’s Maria Baer decided time on the road was in order. So her family loaded up and headed to some of our nation’s most consequential landmarks.

Today, the first half of their journey.

MARIA BAER: On a Friday morning in July, my two daughters pile into our SUV. My history-buff husband takes the wheel. I buckle up.

I don’t love road trips. But I do love our founding fathers. And it was Daniel Webster who wrote that “every child in America should be acquainted with his own country… he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.”

OK; challenge accepted. But as we roll away from our home in Columbus, Ohio I wonder: how does one do this in 2026? I don’t mean how do we get there — we have Google Maps and Audible. I mean how do we convince our kids to appreciate our country’s deep history?

Our first stop is Boston.

SOUND: [Seagulls]

On the way, we meet up with our best friends and their two kids. By early evening the first day, the eight of us are climbing the grassy slope of Bunker Hill.

Here a ragtag bunch of American patriots dug a crude trench overnight and took their first real stand against the British. The spot is marked with a plaque.

AUDIO: The first major military confrontation of the revo..revonu..revolutionary war!

I set my sights on ten-year-old Ezra, the only young boy in our group. Maybe the drama of battle will pique his interest.

BAER: Ezra do you know what a bayonet is?

EZRA: No…

BAER: Have you seen in movies those big, they look like long shotguns, and at the end of the shotgun there’s a blade…

It works.

EZRA: I think the best way to kill someone with that weapon is to stab them right here…

After a quick debate over whether Spiderman might survive a fall from the top of the Bunker Hill monument, the four kids turn their attention to the small, steep hill itself.

AUDIO: Here you go… I’ll tell you when you get too close ok… STOP!

Perfect to roll down. I’ll do it next!

The next day, we tour the Tea Party Ships and Museum in Boston Harbor, where docents cleverly conduct the tour as if the rebellion is happening in real time.

AUDIO: [Flute playing] If you have come down here this night to destroy this tea, please say ‘aye’! AYE!

After cautioning us on the punishment for treason, our guides let the kids throw their own crates overboard.

AUDIO: Three, two, one, Huzzah! [Splash]

The kids fully embrace the reenactment.

AUDIO: Well, I might get hanged for this, but thankfully King George III is not alive anymore!

But we face our own small crisis of conscience the next morning on the Boston Freedom Trail, a walking tour through famous gravesites, churchyards, and the site of the Boston Massacre. Our guide is dressed convincingly as a colonist with one glaring exception: a rainbow pin on his tri-corner hat.

AUDIO: That golden dome is the Massachusetts State House…

After teaching us about John Hancock and Paul Revere, our guide opines on a brave early suffragist named Margaret Foley. She was a lesbian, he claims, because she never married and lived with a female friend.

AUDIO: In 1917, Margaret Foley is participating very openly in what is known as a "Boston marriage” with a woman named Helen Elizabeth Goodnow…

We knew there’d be moments of friction on this trip when America’s history might be forced through an ideologically progressive lens. We have a game in our two families called “catch the lie.” When our kids encounter propaganda, they get points for calling it out to us. This time, my eldest whispers “two women can’t get married.” That’s a point for her.

After three days and thousands of steps, we leave the brick streets of Boston Harbor for New York Harbor.

AUDIO: [Seagulls] Ahhh, there’s so much wind! The vessel is now alongside the dock. All disembarking passengers should move to the exit gangway…

We hop the ferry to Ellis Island, docking next to a cluster of small, neglected-looking brick buildings.

AUDIO: [Echoes, barge sounds]

A hush descends on the kids inside the cavernous Ellis Island museum — where more than 12 million immigrants once waited in long, winding lines.

In the records room, we find something my husband’s family has been searching for for years.

AUDIO: We found great-grandpa Morris Tabershaw. But when he came over from Belarus, which was Russia at the time, he was Morsche Taberchow, which was at least how they listed him: his mom, Chane, and his four siblings as well. So Morris Tabershaw, part of a whole boat of Russian Jews that came over in 1905.

When our ship docks, it’s back to the car for the next leg of our trip. Tomorrow, Philadelphia.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Maria Baer.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Lindsay Mast.

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

We’ve already spent some time today and this week considering the promises and risks of artificial intelligence. WORLD commentator Cal Thomas takes up AI from a different angle—by looking back at some earlier predictions of catastrophe.

CAL THOMAS: In the 1964 satire Dr. Strangelove, the Soviet Union has built the ultimate deterrent.

It’s a “Doomsday Machine.”

Attack the Soviets, and the machine automatically destroys life on Earth.

Today, some of the people building artificial intelligence are issuing warnings almost as frightening.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told CBS Sunday Morning that AI is advancing faster than its safeguards.

AMODEI: What it means, It doesn’t mean we need to panic today. It doesn’t mean we need to shut it all down. … I would say It’s a warning sign, It’s a warning sign that we need to slow down.

Amodei worries about losing control of powerful systems—and about their use in cyberattacks and biological threats.

Other prominent AI leaders, including Sam Altman and Elon Musk, have also called for greater caution.

President Trump isn’t buying the doomsday talk.

During a phone call Monday with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Trump said:

TRUMP: The robots will not be taking over. The AI will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax.

Trump did add that America needs to be careful and prudent.

House Speaker Mike Johnson says some guardrails are needed, but warns against giving up America’s technological lead to China.

I have long suspected artificial intelligence has existed in Washington.

It’s called Congress.

But seriously: How frightened should the rest of us be?

Human beings have a long history of predicting doomsday.

Radio preacher Harold Camping repeatedly predicted the end of the world. Each date came and went.

In 1806, an English hen supposedly laid eggs announcing, “Christ is coming”—until its owner was caught faking them.

Halley’s Comet and the Mayan calendar inspired doomsday scares, too.

We’re still here.

But artificial intelligence is not a comet prediction or a message on an egg.

This is real.

AI’s capabilities are advancing quickly. And when some of the very people developing the technology say there are risks, prudence requires listening to them.

That does not require panic.

History has taught us something about doomsday predictions: They get headlines. They don’t always get the future right.

Some guardrails make sense. But there’s a difference between guarding against a danger and regulating a technology into submission.

Dr. Strangelove was funny because the Doomsday Machine was absurd—and because human beings were foolish enough to build it.

Artificial intelligence may do enormous good. It may also cause serious harm.

But artificial intelligence is still a tool.

The machine should serve us. We should not serve the machine.

For WORLD, I’m Cal Thomas.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: Tomorrow: Marco Rubio takes a tour through Latin America. We’ll have a report. And, enrollment in the federal food assistance program has dropped. Are recent reforms working, or are some people being left behind? That and more tomorrow.

I’m Lindsay Mast.

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

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

The Bible says,  “O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds. So even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come. —Psalm 71:17–18

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.