Datasets:

karukas

/

mediasum-summary-matching

like 1

Food prices will continue to rise significantly in the coming decade. That's according to a report released today by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization. Those agencies say that, beyond the need for more humanitarian aid, it's time to rethink biofuel programs.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From NPR News, this is Day to Day.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Higher food prices are here to stay, and they may go even higher. That's what a new report from the United Nations says. Marketplace's Amy Scott is here now. And Amy, what kinds of increases does the report say that we can expect?</s>AMY SCOTT: Well, the report is from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or UNFAO, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, and they are expecting food prices to come down from some of the record highs we've been seeing as some of the short-term causes like bad weather and certain economic policies diminish. But overall, thanks to higher demand and things like higher oil prices, we can expect to pay more in the next decade than we did in the previous ten years. Things like wheat and corn can cost 40 to 60 percent more, beef and pork may cost 20 percent more.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, what, would that translate into higher prices at the grocery store?</s>AMY SCOTT: It will, but it sort of depends where you live. I spoke with economist Chris Hurt at Purdue University and he told me that in the developed world, where foods tend to be more processed, the actual commodity, like wheat or corn, makes up about 20 percent of the retail price. So, that insulates us a bit from swings in commodity prices. But in the developing world, where there is a lot less processing, you know the staple like rice or bread is much closer to the commodity. That's where you are seeing much bigger increases that are really hurting people.</s>AMY SCOTT: A UN official I spoke to said 100 million more people around the world could be pushed below the poverty line because of these high prices. Now economist Chris Hurt has one critique of the UN report. He says prices may come down even more as food produces respond to the increase in demand.</s>Mr. CHRIS HURT (Economist, Purdue University): So it generally takes about a three-to-five-year lag for the supply to begin to get built up after these periods of very short stocks. So I think the paper may be may be a little bit shortsighted in not saying we can expect to see the producers of the world respond. And maybe respond pretty dramatically to bring back that supply to higher levels.</s>AMY SCOTT: One thing the report recommends is greater use of genetically modified crops to increase food production.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: And what else does it say we should do?</s>AMY SCOTT: Well, it urges countries to rethink their biofuel policies. Here in the U.S. about a quarter of the corn crop is expected to go toward ethanol production within about 15 years. And the report says biofuel is the single biggest new demand that is pushing prices up, but that the economic and environmental benefits are quote, "at best modest and sometimes even negative." We can expect to hear more proposed solutions next week when about 40 world leaders meet in Rome to discuss these issues.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Thanks Amy. That's Amy Scott of public radio's daily business show, Marketplace.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Stay with us. NPR's Day to Day continues.

States around the country are replacing aging voting equipment. New technology that's under consideration in Georgia has sparked a debate around security and accessibility.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Millions of Americans will likely cast their ballots in 2020 using new technology. States have been working to update voting equipment since the 2016 election revealed security gaps, but as officials shop around, they are thinking about more than just security. From member station WABE in Atlanta, Johnny Kauffman reports on the hunt for a better voting system.</s>SCOTT TUCKER: And then I go on the back because it says to vote both sides of the ballot.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: Scott Tucker uses a black Sharpie to fill in bubbles on a paper ballot. He's with Dominion Voting Systems.</s>SCOTT TUCKER: So once I'm complete with filling a ballot, I would take it to our precinct scanner, and I would just slide it into the scanner.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: The paper ballot drops into a black box just bigger than a mini-fridge. Companies like Dominion basically offer two options for voting with paper ballots - these hand-marked ones and...</s>SCOTT TUCKER: So the ballot-marking device - there's two components of it.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: This time Tucker makes his selections on a 21-inch touchscreen computer - a ballot-marking device. Then it prints a normal piece of paper with a list of candidates. The voter is supposed to check that what's on the paper matches what they picked on the screen. Both of the options Tucker showed me are different than what's currently used in 14 states - voting machines that do not produce a paper ballot. Right now in these states, there is no paper backup to confirm election results if there's a malfunction or even possibly tampering.</s>WENKE LEE: I think voters are concerned that we have not done enough to secure our voting system.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: Wenke Lee is a cybersecurity professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. For him and other experts, a paper backup doesn't guarantee security. He says we can't be sure voters will check what they picked on the touchscreen matches what's on the paper printout.</s>WENKE LEE: Now, you're looking at this piece of paper that was not accurate in the first place, so you're not going to be able to catch any error.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: While Lee and other computer scientists say hand-marked paper ballots are the best choice, many election officials disagree. Cynthia Willingham works in Rockdale County, Ga.</s>CYNTHIA WILLINGHAM: I have no doubt that our voters of the state of Georgia will check their ballot. They will verify their ballot.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: There isn't research to prove this. Willingham says it will be relatively easy for states like Georgia to switch from one touchscreen voting system to another.</s>CYNTHIA WILLINGHAM: Voters are used to technology, and just about every home has a tablet, whether it's an iPad or any other tablet.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: Advocates for people with disabilities also want ballot-marking devices. Michelle Bishop is with the National Disability Rights Network. She says those machines are more accessible. And to avoid Election Day confusion, Bishop thinks everyone should vote on the same system.</s>MICHELLE BISHOP: We are the only people who are being asked to take one for the team and risk our own ability to vote so that non-disabled people can feel more secure about their ballots.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: Georgia will likely be the largest state to update its voting equipment. Lawmakers are working on it right now even as the state is still dealing with questions about the accuracy of the 2018 election results. Republicans won the statewide contests and are generally in favor of ballot-marking devices, but Democrats allege widespread mismanagement, and they mostly want hand-marked paper ballots. Voters like Liz Troop, who have shown up at public hearings, agree.</s>LIZ TROOP: You can fight and fight for a candidate or cause, but if there's no accountability for elections, it doesn't really matter. And I keep coming back to that.</s>JOHNNY KAUFFMAN, BYLINE: So states choosing new voting technology are in a tough spot. Even though their picks might be better than the old equipment, they're still likely to worry some voters, leading to new questions about the accuracy of elections. For NPR News, I'm Johnny Kauffman in Atlanta.

India claims its fighter jets crossed into Pakistani-controlled territory and hit militant training camps there. Pakistan says India struck an open field.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Tensions between two neighbors, India and Pakistan, boiled over today into violence. India says its military jets dropped bombs inside Pakistan. The target - a training camp run by a militant group that claims it was behind the recent killing of Indian troops in the disputed region of Kashmir. NPR's Lauren Frayer reports from New Delhi, where many people are celebrating the attack.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Indian police broke out in a patriotic song. Civilians waved India's tricolor flag and handed out sweets at an intersection here in the capital, New Delhi. Ever since a suicide car bomb killed 40 Indian troops earlier this month, many Indians have been calling for retaliation against a Pakistan-based group that claimed responsibility. The group is called Jaish-e-Muhammad. It's a U.S.-designated terror group, and it operates out of Pakistan, even though it's banned there. At a news conference today in New Delhi, India's foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale said Pakistani authorities have failed to act.</s>VIJAY GOKHALE: India has been repeatedly urging Pakistan to take action against the Jaish-e-Muhammad to prevent jihadis from being trained and armed inside Pakistan. Pakistan has taken no concrete action to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its soil.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: So he says India acted on its own with airstrikes today. He said they killed a very large number of militants, trainees and Jaish-e-Muhammad leaders. Pakistan gave a very different account. It confirmed that Indian fighter jets entered its airspace, but Pakistan's military spokesperson said they dropped their payload on an empty field and that there was no damage and no casualties.</s>DHRUVA JAISHANKAR: Pakistan tends to deny. It helps to manage their own domestic expectations. We saw this also after the U.S. attack on Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was killed.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Dhruva Jaishankar, a fellow at Brookings India here in New Delhi, says that India is thinking about domestic audiences, as well, ahead of elections this spring. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been dogged by disappointing unemployment numbers.</s>DHRUVA JAISHANKAR: But clearly, there's now a narrative to push with the forthcoming elections and the campaigning already very much underway.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Modi held a rally today...</s>NARENDRA MODI: (Foreign language spoken).</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: ...At which he sought to assure citizens that their country is, quote, "in safe hands." Lauren Frayer, NPR News, New Delhi.

As President Trump heads to another summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, NPR's Ari Shapiro talks to former State Department envoy Robert King about North Korea's human rights record.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: During the first year of the Trump administration, the president unequivocally condemned North Korea's human rights record.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: An estimated 100,000 North Koreans suffer in gulags, toiling in forced labor and enduring torture, starvation, rape and murder on a constant basis.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: But the issue was not a major focus of the first summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un last June. Now, Kim and Trump are on their way to Hanoi, Vietnam, for a second meeting, and human rights advocates see an opportunity.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Robert King was special envoy for North Korea human rights issues at the State Department during the Obama administration. His position has not been filled in the Trump administration. Ambassador, welcome.</s>ROBERT KING: Thank you. It's good to be here.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: North Korea is a famously closed-off society, so it's hard to know exactly what is happening inside the country. But what do we know about the scale of human rights abuses there?</s>ROBERT KING: Well, the scale of human rights abuses in North Korea is actually fairly well-known. We're marking the fifth anniversary this month of the report of the Commission of Inquiry, a U.N. human rights commission. They concluded that, in fact, there are crimes against humanity being committed in North Korea. They had a number of North Koreans who had fled North Korea and were able to talk about conditions there. They had experts who talked about what we can see from satellite images. So I mean, we know quite a bit about what's happening.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That quote we heard from President Trump - an estimated 100,000 people in North Korean gulags suffering from torture, starvation, rape and murder. Does that sound accurate to you?</s>ROBERT KING: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: There wasn't any progress on this issue in the last meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un. Do you think this time will be any different?</s>ROBERT KING: There's no indication of it. What the problem seems to be is that the Trump administration - at least Trump has used human rights not as something we need to work on but as a stick to beat the North Koreans until they come around to talking about nuclear weapons. He was very careful to mention human rights in his United Nations speech in the fall of 2017. He mentioned it in 2018 in his State of the Union address.</s>ROBERT KING: After the summit was set up, nary a word from the White House on human rights conditions in North Korea. It wasn't raised in the last summit. There's no indication so far that it's going to be raised in this summit.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: President Trump said they did discuss this at the summit in Singapore, though relatively briefly compared to the issue of denuclearization. But he says it did come up.</s>ROBERT KING: It may have been raised. The North Koreans certainly didn't engage on the issue. And there was nothing mentioned by the North Koreans about human rights in their take on the summit, which suggests - wasn't an issue for them.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Well, what do you think a reasonable expectation is? What is achievable?</s>ROBERT KING: Well, the first thing is raising the issue. I don't think we start with the worst problem, the most sensitive issues. But there are things that we ought to do in terms of encouraging the flow of information, for example. North Koreans are extremely limited in terms of their access to information about what is going on, both in their own country and outside. The government controls information very tightly. That's an area where we could make progress.</s>ROBERT KING: We could press the North Koreans for more contact, for more openness, more travel for North Koreans. There are a number of areas we could work on.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Is there an argument that because North Korea has the ability to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States, it makes sense for a president to prioritize that over an issue like human rights abuses?</s>ROBERT KING: There's no question that North Korea's military capability is the most important issue that we face in terms of dealing with North Korea. But we're trying to get North Korea to accept international standards in terms of nonproliferation - this kind of thing.</s>ROBERT KING: The North Koreans have undertaken to accept international standards in human rights. They are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we let them get away with doing nothing on human rights when they've committed themselves to observe those human rights obligations, what does that say about our ability to press the North Koreans to make progress on international nuclear standards we're trying to get them to accept?</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Ambassador Robert King, thank you so much.</s>ROBERT KING: My pleasure.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Ambassador King was special envoy for North Korea human rights issues at the State Department during the Obama administration.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency, we may see the first Web-friendly Oval Office, according to a piece in the Atlantic Monthly. Marc Ambinder discusses his thesis.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Madeline Brand.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: And I'm Alex Chadwick. The Atlantic, the magazine and the dot-com carry several pieces analyzing the Obama campaign and its prospects, including a couple that focus on the senator's use of the internet. The magazine says the campaign's very shrewd tactic for organizing networks of givers and volunteers was key to his success. Associate editor Mark Ambinder goes on to consider how Barack Obama in the White House might use the internet to help govern. Mark, what are some of the examples that you cite? How Barack Obama has already said that he would use the internet?</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): Well, as transparency has been one of his buzz words, he for example, would propose to create a database modeled after Google that would list to the dollar every federal expenditure. He wants to televise regulatory meetings, and construct a new mechanism to give citizens a chance to add their input in that often very obscure process.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So, you go on to note that the openness that Senator Obama has talked about, for instance, having people comment on various bills that have been passed before a President Obama would sign them. But that's good, but it also brings complications with it. That is, if you're listening to everybody all the time, it kind of gets in the way of your efficiency.</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): And it also in a way provides a veneer of participation and transparency, but it's hard to imagine, short of a massive change in the culture of bureaucracies, that even more input from citizens on, say, regulatory matters would make much of a difference.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: But you say that communication, how we communicate, has been so important in politics since the beginning of the country that something like the postal system which sort of flourished under President Andrew Jackson. That's when the, it's kind of a network, it's an analogy for a network. Was created say creative people could communicate better and that really mattered. The internet is going to matter because the people around Senator Obama, they understand the internet better than, well older politicians do.</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): They certainly do, and they've been extraordinarily successful in figuring out instrumental ways to use the internet to the benefit of Barack Obama. But there's a difference between being a presidential candidate and being a president. At which point there are many, many different, often overlapping, often competing, conflicting goals and many actors. So it'll be interesting to see whether the Obama campaign as it becomes perhaps an Obama administration, can translate the set of practices that they have mastered into government.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: You know, it's not, I guess, a good idea to call Senator Obama the first great internet candidate, because there already was a first great internet candidate who was going to ride online into the White House. His name was Howard Dean.</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): He was. Howard Dean started in many ways, Barack Obama perfected, instead of, for example, you know the Dean campaign had this very famous blog that showed Trippy, the campaign manager, and others, would read obsessively and use it as a way to come up with policy ideas. The Obama's relationship with the net roots, with its supporters, with actually most of the entire Democratic Party has not been all that democratic.</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): They have managed to find a way to harness the tools of the internet, without necessarily the spirit of the internet. But that's OK because Barack Obama generates such enthusiasm that a lot of the debates that were roiling or that were percolating in the net roots when Howard Dean was running, you just don't see this year. They have sublimated themselves to the greater cause of electing Barack Obama. It's fairly remarkable.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mark Ambinder writes a political blog at atlantic.com. Mark, thank you.</s>Mr. MARK AMBINDER (Associate Editor, The Atlantic): Thank you.

Mark Jordan Legan reviews two films out this week: the long-awaited Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull starring Harrison Ford and the political satire War, Inc. starring John Cusack.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is Day to Day from NPR News. I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: And I'm Madeleine Brand. The blockbuster movie this weekend is clearly "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." To see what the critics think of the latest in the Indie opus, and another smaller movie, here is Mark Jordan Legan with Slate's Summary Judgment.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: The famous writer George S. Kaufman once said, satire is what closes on Saturday night. And unfortunately, that might be the case with the troubled political satire, "War, Inc." John Cusack co-wrote and stars in the dark comedy about a professional hit man who is hired by an American corporation to kill a Middle Eastern oil baron. Everyone from Hillary Duff to Sir Ben Kingsley to Dan Aykroyd stars.</s>Mr. JOHN CUSACK (Actor): (As Brand Hauser) What's my cover?</s>Mr. DAN AYKROYD (Actor): (As The Vice President) Trade show producer.</s>Mr. JOHN CUSACK (Actor): (As Brand Hauser) Trade show. What show? What show? What show?</s>Mr. DAN AYKROYD (Actor): (As The Vice President) It's going to be huge, Hauser. Camera Lane is sponsoring a trade expo, Brand USA. It's our big launch, bringing democracy to this part of the world.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: The film sat on the shelf for awhile, and many of the critics think it should have stayed there. USA Today calls it intriguing if flawed. But LA Weekly snarls, "War, Inc." squanders top-tier talent as well as our patience. And the Wall Street Journal gripes, a sorry excuse for political satire.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: And continuing with an odd Hollywood trend, the reviving action heroes who might be passed their prime like Rambo, Rocky and John "Die Hard" McLain, the legendary Indiana Jones returns to the screen for the first time in 19 years in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Set in 1957, the famous archeologist battles the Soviets, jungle warriors, old flames, and even the McCarthy blacklist. But nothing can stop the power of the old fedora and a whip. Last time I saw someone with a fedora and a whip was in Vegas, and I had to pay extra.</s>Mr. HARRISON FORD: (As Indiana Jones) Legend says that a crystal skull was stolen from a mythical lost city in the Amazon. Whoever returns the skull to the city temple will be given control over its power.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Talk about a critic-proof movie, but the reviews are strong. Yes, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg seem to have another winner on their hands. Time Magazine says, once it gets going, Crystal Skull delivers smart, robust, familiar entertainment. The Boston Globe shouts, grand old-school fun, a rollicking class reunion. And the New York Daily News cheers, entertaining, inventive, and old-fashioned in the best way.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Now, of course, the studio was concerned that only the older fans of the previous three "Indiana Jones" movies would come. So to make sure the younger demographic shows up, that's why there's the Crystal Skull Happy Meals, the Crystal Skull flip-flops, and you know, I must say, this mocha-crystal-skull-achino (ph) is delicious.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Ah!</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Mark Jordan Legan is a writer living and supping in Los Angeles.

Summertime is here and residents of some beach towns are feeling nervous about their economies. Rehoboth Beach, Del., is one spot where there's anxiety about how the economic downturn is going to affect summer tourism.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is Day to Day, I'm Alex Chadwick. Coming up, the next primary is in Puerto Rico. We're going to hear from a political analyst there who says it's not clear that Senator Hillary Clinton is going to do well. But first, the average price of gas is approaching four dollars a gallon on this Memorial Day. It's expected to keep on climbing. That coupled with a soft economy is worrying businesses that depend on summer tourists. We sent reporter Joel Rose to the beach recently for the latest instalment in our series, The Bottom Line.</s>JOEL ROSE: It's sunny but cool today in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, with a stiff wind off the ocean. There are almost as many seagulls on the boardwalk as tourists. In a few weeks, this boardwalk will be mobbed, or, at least, that's what the merchants here are hoping. One of those merchants is Marie Kilpatrick(ph). She manages Dolle's Candyland, the corner of Rehoboth Avenue and the boardwalk.</s>Ms. MARIE KILPATRICK (Merchant, Dolle's Candyland): We're not as busy. We're hoping this weekend they're saying it's going to really be beautiful. So I'm trying to hope, and keep our fingers crossed.</s>JOEL ROSE: Kilpatrick has worked at Dolle's for 10 years. She says this is the slowest she's ever seen it. Kilpatrick says some of her customers are buying smaller boxes of caramel corn fudge and saltwater toffee than they normally do. And she's worried that's a sign of things to come.</s>Ms. MARIE KILPATRICK (Merchant, Dolle's Candyland): If they come down, it may be just for a day or two with the gas prices. And they're going to watch their money. I can see that. But, you know, people want caramel corn, people want toffee, they're going to come down here regardless.</s>Mr. KOSTAS SARCOLIS (Manager, Robin Hood Restaurant): This might be the most challenging time in the last 15 years.</s>JOEL ROSE: Kostas Sarcolis (ph) manages the Robin Hood Restaurant about half a block from the boardwalk. He says shop owners in town are nervous that rising gas prices will mean fewer beachgoers this summer.</s>Mr. KOSTAS SARCOLIS (Manager, Robin Hood Restaurant): It's a little daunting to think about, you know, four dollar gas. And it's scary.</s>JOEL ROSE: Everybody's holding their breath trying to see what it means.</s>Mr. KOSTAS SARCOLIS (Manager, Robin Hood Restaurant): Yeah, yeah.</s>JOEL ROSE: The story is similar a few miles up the coast in Lewes, Delaware. Betsy Reimer(ph) runs the local Chamber of Commerce.</s>Ms. BETSY REIMER (Lewes Chamber of Commerce): For the businesses, summertime is for a lot of them, make or break. We are a tank of gas drive from big, metropolitan areas. The Philly area, Baltimore, Washington area. And we're just hoping that they'll say, well, instead of driving maybe four hours to another beach destination, we'll do the two hour drive to this area.</s>JOEL ROSE: One hotel here isn't just hoping, the Greystone Inn Bed and Breakfast is offering to buy 20 dollars worth of gas for anyone who stays at least two nights.</s>Mr. MITCH MYERS (Proprietor, Greystone Inn Bed & Breakfast): The astute traveler who wants to go to the beach is going to go anyhow. But if there's any way that I can entice them, that's what I'll do.</s>JOEL ROSE: Still, proprietor Mitch Myers(ph) says B&B's all over Delaware are bracing for an off year.</s>Mr. MITCH MYERS (Proprietor, Greystone Inn Bed & Breakfast): Everyone thinks we're going to have probably a 10 to 15 percent less in terms of people and overnight stays on what we had last year. That's what I really think. I hope I'm wrong.</s>Mr. MITCH MYERS (Proprietor, Greystone Inn Bed & Breakfast): Unidentified Announcer: May I have you attention please...</s>JOEL ROSE: High gas prices haven't stopped the traveler on this ferry boat from Delaware to New Jersey though some like Judy Balser(ph) of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, took a bus to the Jersey shore instead of driving.</s>Ms. JUDY BALSER (Holidaymaker): All that travel, is all included in a package, so cheaper than buying gas for a car. We have done this before. But now it's even a better deal because now we think, how could we afford to do it with the price of gas?</s>JOEL ROSE: Several other travellers told me they're planning shorter trips this summer to save money including Tera Pazulo(ph) of Wakefield, Rhode Island.</s>Ms. TERA PAZULO (Holidaymaker): We have a camper so we probably won't do the, you know, the real far trips. We've gone down south to Carolina, but we won't go that far this year.</s>JOEL ROSE: Another couple who won't be going very far this summer is Linda and Bill Natun(ph). They're on their way back to Vermont from Washington, D.C.</s>Ms. LYNDA NATUN (Holidaymaker): You end up talking to friends who are planning on staying fairly close to home, and just doing very small trips. Like if they live in Fairfax County, they're going to West Virginia, and stay fairly close instead of branching out further.</s>JOEL ROSE: The Natuns say they're waiting to see what gas prices look like in the fall before they plan any more trips of their own. Back in Rehoboth Beach, the kitchen at Gus and Gus Place(ph) is cranking up french fries for Memorial Day crowds.</s>Mr. GUS SFALLAS (Proprietor Gus and Gus Place): I'm Gus. I've been here 53 years in this corner. I see all kinds. Bad and good. Most of us good.</s>JOEL ROSE: Gus Sfallas (ph) has been selling burgers, hot dogs, and fries on the boardwalk since 1955. Gus Sfallas says he's paying more for food this summer, but he's doing his best not to raise prices.</s>Mr. GUS SFALLAS (Proprietor Gus and Gus Place): Because a lot of people they're working. They're coming down for vacation. They pay the motels and everything else. It's expensive for them. We try the best we can to keep everybody happy.</s>JOEL ROSE: Sfallas has seen economic slowdowns in this Delaware beach town before, and he expects to weather this one, too. For NPR News, I'm Joel Rose.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: More in a moment on Day to Day from NPR News.

Uncounted delegates from Michigan and Florida are again in question as Democrats on the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee meet to decide their fate this weekend. The meeting could tip the contest either way.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is Day to Day. Madeleine Brand is away, I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Ceremonies today at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery where President Bush laid a wreath for Memorial Day. Coming up on the program a Green Beret officer remembers a friend lost in the line of duty. First, the Democrats' final primaries come Sunday in Puerto Rico, and next week in Montana and South Dakota. But on Saturday in Washington there's an event to determine the primary results in two of the most popular states. NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving is with us. Ron, it's Florida and Michigan. Explain.</s>RON ELVING: One more time to Florida and Michigan. You know the voters did decide in a way back in January when these states held their primaries outside the calendar window allowed by the national party. They were kind of awkward primaries. The candidates didn't campaign there. Barack Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. And no one was sure whether any of this was going to count because the party's rules had said that they wouldn't count any delegates at all who were chosen before the calendar window began on February 5th.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So now where are we with this very confused process?</s>RON ELVING: Well one big thing has changed, and that is that what the time that they work this all out in fall and winter last year there was an assumption that February fifth would kind of be Super Tuesday, they would have a nominee. It would be clear, and then they could go back and repair the damage between the national party and Florida and Michigan. But of course instead we had months, and months, and months primary after primary, after primary, and caucuses. And we haven't known who the nominee was going to be so and so there hasn't been any kind of basis on which everyone could get together. Now that we're getting a little closer to the end, and Barack Obama has more or less dominating lead of about 200 delegates overall, it looks possible that people can actually get together, and work out some kind of a deal.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: But Senator Clinton, in particular, is holding on to Florida and Michigan as maybe a path for her, and she says this is important and we have to get these two states in there.</s>RON ELVING: That's right, and there is a meeting of the rules and bylaws committee of the Democratic National Committee this weekend in Washington at the Mayflower hotel. They're going to try to come up with some kind of a compromise that would get these delegations seated, and which will almost by force because Hillary Clinton won both those state primaries, give her a payoff in delegates. Now they can stick to the rules and exclude both states totally, but that would hurt the party too much in both states and probably hurt the nominee, and cost him a chance to win those states. They could also totally just bring the prodigals back in, and welcome them, and say no penalty at all, but of course that would send a bad message to all the other states that did follow the rules. So they're looking for a compromise.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: And that is?</s>RON ELVING: Probably something along the lines of what we call the 50 percent solution. This is what the Republicans are doing. They're punishing the same two states by cutting their delegations in half. Then they can send half as many people if they like or they can send the same number of people, and give each one of them half a vote. So in the Democrats' case in Michigan they would go from having 28 pledge delegate votes to having 64. But they can have 128 people go, and just each cast half a vote.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So how is that good for Senator Obama?</s>RON ELVING: It's good because while he does give up maybe 10 in Michigan maybe 20 or so in Florida, if they cut that in half especially it really doesn't matter that much to his overall lead. It doesn't cut it down enough and it's not too great a price to pay for peace in the valley.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Aah. Ron, I see the light! NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Thank you again.</s>RON ELVING: Thank you Alex.

Torture Team, a book by lawyer and author Philippe Sands, pulls together the results of interviews with the people in the United States government who decided to use harsh tactics in detainee interrogations.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: There was some book party a couple of weeks ago in London. The British equivalent of our chief justice, he's Lord Bingham was host. A rare thing for a senior law lord. But so is this book, "Torture Team," by British international lawyer, Philippe Sands. It's a provocative look at the rules of interrogation that the Bush administration first promulgated at Guantanamo. Rules that have now been abandoned. Here's NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg with a book review.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: There was some book party a couple of weeks ago in London. The British equivalent of our chief justice, he's Lord Bingham was host. A rare thing for a senior law lord. But so is this book, "Torture Team," by British international lawyer, Philippe Sands. It's a provocative look at the rules of interrogation that the Bush administration first promulgated at Guantanamo. Rules that have now been abandoned. Here's NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg with a book review.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: The focus of his book is the top lawyers in the Bush administration, nd how those lawyers changed the military rules on interrogation in the aftermath of 9/11. Sands' focuses on the military because the procedures that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, authorized for use at Guantanamo were not permitted by the army field manual. It was the bible for military personnel. So these were new rules for military interrogations at Guantanamo. Three U.S. commissions have subsequently concluded that the techniques migrated to Abu Ghraib, and they proved so controversial once exposed two years later, that they were withdrawn.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: The focus of his book is the top lawyers in the Bush administration, nd how those lawyers changed the military rules on interrogation in the aftermath of 9/11. Sands' focuses on the military because the procedures that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, authorized for use at Guantanamo were not permitted by the army field manual. It was the bible for military personnel. So these were new rules for military interrogations at Guantanamo. Three U.S. commissions have subsequently concluded that the techniques migrated to Abu Ghraib, and they proved so controversial once exposed two years later, that they were withdrawn.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: What's most interesting about the book is the work Sands has done interviewing the participants. He's interviewed almost all the key players, from the low level lawyers with no international law experience who were initially ordered to draft the rules, to the Naval Investigative Service Psychological Interrogation team and the F.B.I. team who heatedly objected to the rules. He talked to the Pentagon brass including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Pentagon's top policy people including Under-Secretary of Defense for policy, Douglas Fife, and the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer, Jim Haynes. And he knows, as do some of the administration officials he interviews, that the people most experienced in international law, the top military, and state department lawyers were deliberately cut out of the process, presumably so they would not object to the new tactics, and prevent them from being put in place.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: What's most interesting about the book is the work Sands has done interviewing the participants. He's interviewed almost all the key players, from the low level lawyers with no international law experience who were initially ordered to draft the rules, to the Naval Investigative Service Psychological Interrogation team and the F.B.I. team who heatedly objected to the rules. He talked to the Pentagon brass including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Pentagon's top policy people including Under-Secretary of Defense for policy, Douglas Fife, and the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer, Jim Haynes. And he knows, as do some of the administration officials he interviews, that the people most experienced in international law, the top military, and state department lawyers were deliberately cut out of the process, presumably so they would not object to the new tactics, and prevent them from being put in place.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: He's most incendiary conclusion mirrors that of some other analysts, namely that the 15 techniques approved by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, when used in combination, constitute a war crime. These techniques include everything from extreme heat and cold, stress positions, dogs, and round the clock interrogation allowing only four hours for interrupted sleep. Interrogation that lasted as long as 54 days in one case. And while Bush administration officials have said that these rules came from the bottom up, Sands contends that's not true. That the rules were developed in his words, at the very top, starting with Vice President Cheney's counsel, David Addington, President Bush's then White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's counsel, Jim Haynes.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: He's most incendiary conclusion mirrors that of some other analysts, namely that the 15 techniques approved by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, when used in combination, constitute a war crime. These techniques include everything from extreme heat and cold, stress positions, dogs, and round the clock interrogation allowing only four hours for interrupted sleep. Interrogation that lasted as long as 54 days in one case. And while Bush administration officials have said that these rules came from the bottom up, Sands contends that's not true. That the rules were developed in his words, at the very top, starting with Vice President Cheney's counsel, David Addington, President Bush's then White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's counsel, Jim Haynes.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: Sands describes a 2002 visit to Guantanamo by these three men. The message the three left for subordinates at Gitmo, according to Sands, was do whatever you have to. And he disputes that the tactics that he characterizes as torture ever resulted in good information. One of these tactics was in fact torture and thus a violation of international law, is a subject likely to be debated for decades to come. The conduct authorized by the top lawyers in the Bush administration may well be as much as a lightning rod for this generation as were the Hess and Rosenberg spy cases from the 1950s that still generate heated dispute today. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.</s>NINA TOTENBERG: Sands describes a 2002 visit to Guantanamo by these three men. The message the three left for subordinates at Gitmo, according to Sands, was do whatever you have to. And he disputes that the tactics that he characterizes as torture ever resulted in good information. One of these tactics was in fact torture and thus a violation of international law, is a subject likely to be debated for decades to come. The conduct authorized by the top lawyers in the Bush administration may well be as much as a lightning rod for this generation as were the Hess and Rosenberg spy cases from the 1950s that still generate heated dispute today. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Emotions can be hard to gauge in the beginning of any romantic relationship. But for people with autism, who often struggle to interpret social cues, romance can be particularly challenging to navigate. And for some, the prospect of loving and being loved seems out of reach. Jack Robison, 19-year-old with Asperger's sydrome Kirsten Lindsmith, 18-year-old with Asperger's syndrome Peter Gerhardt, chair, Scientific Council for the Organization for Autism Research

JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm John Donvan, in Washington. Neal Conan is off. It is taking a huge risk to let the New York Times reveal in its pages the minute and most personal details of your love life. And the reason the Times even cares to write about the relationship you're in, it's not because you're running for office or because you're a movie star. It's because you are a teenager who has Asperger's syndrome. And by the way, the other person in your relationship is also a teenager with Asperger's syndrome.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Teenagers Jack Robison, who is 19, and Kirsten Lindsmith, who is 18, took that risk. They told their story to writer Amy Harmon of the New York Times, and the risk was worth taking. The resulting piece is a beautiful, inspiring, funny, moving, sometimes sad look at love on the autism spectrum - because that's what Asperger's syndrome is, it is a way that the brain is wired that is sometimes described as a form of autism, but where the person who has it is generally intelligent or above average in intelligence and well-spoken.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: But the difficult part of life is in reading social cues. It's missing the joke that everybody else gets. It's not knowing that what you're talking about is boring the life out of everybody else in the room. It's having a tendency to obsess on narrow topics, maybe having some set routines that cannot be interfered with.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It's the sort of thing you would assume that can really get in the way of a romantic relationship, especially as you move into the categories of more severe autism. But we are here to discuss both the right of people on the autism spectrum to love and to be loved, and the ways to overcome the obstacles that may come with autism.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: If this is your story, or if it's your child's story, we want to ask you: What has gotten in the way of love? And how have you gotten around it? Give us a call. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can also join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Later on in this hour, we're going to be talking with Peter Gerhardt. He is a specialist on adolescents and adults with autism, and on the place of love, romance and sex in their lives. But first, this couple that is making their own way in this world, as seen in the New York Times, Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith join us from a studio at New England Public Radio in Amherst, Massachusetts. Welcome, both of you, to the program.</s>JACK ROBISON: Hi.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Hi.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi. Jack, you just heard my description of Asperger's. Take a moment and add to it or correct me, or just if I got it right, let me know that, too.</s>JACK ROBISON: I think that you got many aspects of it. I think the biggest thing is that Asperger's is sort of a way of being rather than, like, a condition that you have.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Mm-hmm. Do you feel the same, Kirsten?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Oh, yeah. I agree. I'm - it's been pathologized as of late, but I would consider it more of a type of person rather than a disease. Also just a minor correction, the beginning of the article introduced our ages when we got together. Now I'm 20, and Jack is 21.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You have aged. All right, you have matured and ripened, so that is good for a radio broadcast.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: A little bit.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So I hear you saying that having Asperger's or not is being tall or short or fat or thin. It's in that sort of category in terms of a way of being. So - but you do talk about, and you have talked about the ways in which it may complicate having a relationship. And I want to talk - let's go to an interesting moment in your lives, your first kiss. Jack, from your side of the experience, how was that? How did it go? What happened?</s>JACK ROBISON: Well, I guess it was the first night that we spent together, and I was - well, I don't like kissing as much as Kirsten does, but I sort of went along with it. But I don't know. I, the next day, explained my reluctance, sort of, but I tried to play along.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And what was your explanation, if I may ask?</s>JACK ROBISON: That I didn't like the sensation of it terribly much, and that I was not as enthusiastic as a consequence.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And Kirsten, you're on the other side of that kiss. What was your experience of it?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Well, it's - let's see. I have to think about this before answering - that it wasn't really surprising or confusing why he didn't like kissing, because I'd encountered people before who didn't but who weren't autistic. And he basically explained that it felt to him literally what it was, just two people mashing their mouths together, and that it wasn't - it didn't activate, you know, the kind of romantic inclinations it does in other people who like kissing, that it just felt like pushing faces into another face. And so - sigh. But, alas, it's something that comes with the package.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, you seem to like the package. What is this, what we're talking about now, have to with Asperger's syndrome, Kirsten?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Well, Asperger's is much more than just social awkwardness. It's kind of often painted as a social nerd disease, where really, it's more of a full-body thing. A lot of autism and Asperger's has to do with sensory differences. And so, for example, people with Asperger's will react differently to stimuli like touch or sound or smell.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: And so where the sensation of wetness on a face might not bother someone who's neurotypical, it might seem overwhelming to someone with autism.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I just want to jump on a term that you just used, because I think we're going to be hearing it again. The term neurotypical is a term that refers to everybody who is not in any way on the autism spectrum, typically - those who have a typical neurological makeup or assumed to have such. And sometimes it's shortened to nypical, is that correct?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: According to Jack's father. Personally, I don't like the term neurotypical because it implies that if you don't have autism, you are normal. And I think that very few people would be called truly neurotypical, and that even if one is not on the autism spectrum, there might be differences in other areas, people who think differently. Everybody's different.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right. Who wants to be neurotypical, when you put it that way? Jack, what had been your experience in terms of dating up to this point? We're talking about - so last year, the year before. You were 18, 19. What was your experience in dating up to that point?</s>JACK ROBISON: Well, I had had a girlfriend pretty consistently through high school, from when I was a sophomore on until the end of high school. And I don't know, I sort of - that was an ongoing one where my friends had, you know, girlfriends for a month or two there. That was what I had instead.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Why was that? What was happening?</s>JACK ROBISON: Well, I don't know. I got along with her quite well, and so I didn't have a reason to cut it short, and, you know, I don't know.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So that's a mystery to you. You didn't get an explanation from when the breakups came that made sense to you?</s>JACK ROBISON: Well, I don't know. It sort of - it was a sort of stretched-out thing, and yeah. I don't know. It sort of - we sort of grew apart more, I guess, and it became the thing to do.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Did you tend - we mentioned earlier in the broadcast that - your interest in chemistry, and that one of the characteristics of somebody who has Asperger's is to be really quite focused on a few, a set of small topics, but in great depth and to want to share that or talk about that with people who may not be interested. And did chemistry get in the way in that way for you?</s>JACK ROBISON: Not with her as much, although there - certainly, it was a point of stress for me because it was something that, you know, I care about a great deal, and she didn't really care about it at all. So, you know, I wanted to talk about the things that I thought were really neat that I was reading about, but she didn't really want to hear about it, and neither did my friends, really. So that was sort of a disappointment.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And did you have to learn to take that cue, to take the message that I've got to stop talking about chemistry now?</s>JACK ROBISON: Yeah, I sort of learned to, you know, talk about it on, you know, forums with people who were also interested in it and not with as many, you know, of my real-life peers.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And is that a difficult adjustment to make?</s>JACK ROBISON: I wouldn't - I'd say it's more frustrating than anything because, you know, I'll have something in my head that I want to tell everyone about, but I know they really don't care.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So Kirsten, what was your story, your dating history before meeting Jack?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: I have had more significant others than Jack, though not very many. Let's see. When I was about 15 or so, a sophomore in high school, I briefly dated one of my best friends. And when I say dated, I mean that we went on one date and - where we just sat next to each other and ate sandwiches, and it was very awkward. And for the rest of the time when we were dating, we basically did not change our relationship at all from friends because I was so awkward, and he even had to ask permission to hug me.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: But - and so that broke off pretty quickly. And then after that, I briefly dated very casually another guy in my class who I didn't know very well, and that was sort of like we went to the movies, that sort of thing.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: When you use the word awkward, do you see yourself as awkward, or was the boy involved telling you that you were awkward?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Oh, no. I was awkward, as in I can't even really articulate why, but I was - I think I would most articulate it as I was not ready for a relationship. I was still stuck in kind of the childlike mindset of, oh, people will know that I like somebody, and that's bad, that people will make fun of me for liking somebody, and that even somehow even if he were to know that I liked him - like, I didn't want to hug him or kiss him because then he would know that I liked him, even though we were dating and we obviously were supposed to like each other, that it was sort of somehow embarrassing for me.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: For both of you, for both of you - and - well, I want to get to this point, Kirsten. You found out after your relationship began to deepen with Jack, that's when you found out that you have Asperger's syndrome. Is that correct?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Yeah. I did not know. I didn't get a diagnosis until the summer of 2010, when I was 19. And so I - I suspected when I first started dating Jack, because I knew that he had Asperger's. And so I Googled it, read about it on Wikipedia, learned it was a form of autism, read more about autism, that sort of thing.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: And I noticed that I perfectly fit all the diagnostic criteria, which I thought was very interesting. But I was sort of in the mindset of, oh, I must be being a hypochondriac and I - there's nothing wrong with me. How dare I consider myself to have this disease that real people suffer from - because I didn't know anything about it. And it was really Jack who convinced me that I had it. And I sought an official diagnosis.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Was that a relief to know? Did it give you an explanation?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Oh, yes, because I - in my kind of efforts to get a diagnosis, I ended up going a few places that couldn't give me one. So I set myself with a therapist who I thought would diagnose me, but she told me that she couldn't. But she didn't know anything about autism, and she just decided to run over the criteria with me.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: And she said that she didn't believe I had autism because I have friends, and that she was on the fence. And she asked: What would you say if you didn't have autism? And I would say: Well, I must have something else because, like, otherwise, I'm just broken. And getting a diagnosis really helped me realize that I'm not - there's nothing wrong with me. All the problems that I have, the deficiencies I have are not my fault and that I'm perfectly normal. I'm just a normal autistic.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And I'd like to get a sense from both of you of what that knowledge means in terms of what you actually then do. And we're going to take a break, and I want to ask those questions when we come back. We are talking about love and autism with Kirsten Lindsmith and Jack Robison, and if their story is like your story or your child's, we want you to tell us about it. Our number is 800-989-8255. Or you can send us an email: talk@npr.org. We're going to have more in just a minute. I'm John Donvan. This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan in for Neal Conan. For people like my guests today, Kirsten Lindsmith and Jack Robison, who have Asperger's syndrome, the social cues that help the romantically inclined gauge interest and to fall in love can be mysterious. But there are skills that adolescents and adults with autism can learn that will help them grow into independent adults with fulfilling lives, and fulfilling lives includes love lives.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: If you've got a story about dating with autism about you, or if it's about your child, share it with us. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website. Just go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: As I mentioned, Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith are my guests, and we're looking to hear your stories, as well, and we want to start with a story from Commerce, Michigan, and Roger(ph), who is joining us on TALK OF THE NATION. Roger, hello.</s>ROGER: Hi.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi.</s>ROGER: I myself was an occupational therapy student and did not get diagnosed until my level two of field work, and I had to leave the program afterwards because of it. I'm - and one thing I found is when I attended group therapy sessions, sometimes it's people have a hard time expressing it, sometimes it's reading certain types of behaviors.</s>ROGER: And me in my case, I - it was actually I learned that actually when girls are trying to hit on me, that was one of the behaviors that I honestly cannot read, period. And needless to say, that caused quite a bit of complications in my life.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah, we can imagine, and is it something that you were able to make an adjustment to?</s>ROGER: No, it's something I've never solved it from. Recently, now that I'm 37 years old, I've taken some advice trying out some dating websites and stuff, and it's been a problem that's not been solved because it's, well, hard to tell if someone's interested if I honestly cannot read it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, interesting question. You're talking about face-to-face interaction, and I'm wondering, since you say that you're using Internet sites, does it make a difference if you're looking at text and, you know, you have a little bit of an opportunity to think through the language that's going in two directions? Does it make a difference if it's online?</s>ROGER: I honestly don't know yet. To be honest, it's because it's first seeing if someone's interested, if someone's online, if someone's on a dating site, you're obviously interested in dating. So if I get a hit, it must be - in some way I know that someone's interested because that's the only way I guess I could find out unless someone tells me they're interested, and through text, they have to tell me they're interested. I can't read the non-verbal cues that other girls, you know, give off.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right, so you...</s>ROGER: (Unintelligible) to read and pick up on and I've been told by other people.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So you need to hear the words clearly and expressly stated.</s>ROGER: They have to say that hey, I'm interested, do you want to go on a date? I guess it would be like that type of direct.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah, I can see where that's going to be a challenge. Roger, thanks very much for sharing your story with us. And it's very brave of you to do that and the same with, I think, Jack and Kirsten to be talking about this and everybody who's calling.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We have an email from Boene Omissar(ph), if I've pronounced that correctly. I'm sorry, it's from Randy Scott(ph) in Houston, who writes: My main obstacle to romance has been the lack of people who understand the personality differences.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: When I was young, there was no such thing as Asperger's, and everyone around me simply regarded me as weird. None of my relationships have lasted more than a few months, just long enough for her to get to know me. Now I'm 54, and I'm still single.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Jack and Kirsten, and particularly to you, Jack, are there things as you became aware of your diagnosis and became aware of these challenges that you tried to do to change or to adapt or to adjust to make the communication work better.</s>JACK ROBISON: I would say that the biggest thing that I - I mean, I think that I made people bored a lot, and I still sort of do when I talk about the things I'm interested in, and that was sort of one of the biggest things that I guess I can say that I actually changed about myself, where, you know, I don't walk up to strangers and tell them about, you know, quadricopter, my, you know, four-propellered helicopter, that I don't think that they're terribly interested in it.</s>JACK ROBISON: And, you know, instead I, you know, let them talk or, you know, see what they want to talk about instead, and...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You know, I want to mention I happen to know your dad. His name is John Alva Robison(ph), who is - was diagnosed with Asperger's at the age of I think 39, who wrote a bestseller about it called "Look Me In the Eye." He wrote another book called "Be Different," which essentially is a guide for people who have - who are living his life, you know, how to make it work. And he's also now working on a book about you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And in all of this, he talks about his effort to try to connect and literally talks about studying books on etiquette and looking at films about etiquette to try and figure out what he's supposed to be doing. This is a younger man even before he had his diagnosis. I'm wondering: Do either of you go to that - take those sorts of steps to fill in the gaps on what's on somebody's face as they're talking to you, to try to learn that way?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Oh, I definitely do. I don't know about Jack, but I - the Internet is a wonderful tool. I've found myself Googling things like body-language dictionary. And I found a website that has a very comprehensive body-language dictionary, and I learned things like, for example, if someone is talking to you and squinting one eye, that means that they are talking down to you from a superior position, often giving orders.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: And I realized that my old boss used to talk to me this way, and I had always assumed he had some sort of facial tic because he would squint one eye when talking. And now that I'm aware of it, I see it everywhere. Even on TV, actors will unintentionally do - will do it, or maybe intentionally, but that I - things like that I pick up on now that I've learned it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: But you needed to be - you didn't just absorb it, you needed to essentially read about it or be told about it, and then you can notice it?</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Yeah, like I have a slightly easier job reading signals and facial expressions than maybe the more average autistic, but I know that, like, say different types of smiles, I can recognize a genuine smile from a non-genuine smile, or at least I think I can. But more subtle things like the direction that a palm is facing when someone is gesticulating apparently has a lot of meaning that that doesn't come naturally to me.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: I can learn it, but that's stuff that I don't pick up on.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Although people who can read don't know that they can read it. I mean, they're not even sure what they're reading.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: Yeah, neurotypicals probably could not tell you why they knew, like, the person talking to them was being condescending or why they knew that person was just being polite and didn't really like them but was just pretending, but they know it. They couldn't say oh, it was because the corner of his mouth twitched like this and that his palm was facing down when he spoke to me, and things like that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I want to bring into the conversation now Peter Gerhardt. Peter Gerhardt is chairperson of the Scientific Council at the Organization for Autism Research, and he's the director of education at the Upper School at the McCarton School, which is a school for autistic kids in New York. And Peter, you join us from our bureau in New York. Welcome to the program.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Thanks, John.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And Peter, you - I need to tell our audience also that nationally, you are recognized as the most advanced thinker on the topic of adolescents and adults with autism, including the issue, especially the issue of sexuality, in part because as you once said, nobody else wanted to go into this field back 25 years ago when you got into it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And I'm curious, what we were just talking about with Kirsten and Jack, is this whole notion of learning, of learning to be able to navigate love and sex. Is it learnable? Is there a way forward if you find that you have these obstacles?</s>PETER GERHARDT: It's definitely learnable. It's learnable for all of us if - I think it's probably one of the most challenging skill sets that any of us develop is how to be in a productive, caring, loving relationship. For the, you know, individuals with, you know, Asperger's syndrome, who I work with, it often comes down to just being able to effectively translate your own needs not only to your partner but to the person around you.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Now I know that sounds very sort of psychobabble-ish, you know, but for someone on the spectrum for whom kissing is uncomfortable, like in Jack's case, like being able to say that, you know, understand what the consequences may be but being very comfortable with it, I mean, that's the sort of core negotiating point, I think, that when relationship progress, you have to be more and more willing to discuss these big issues.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And as you say, Pete, for anybody, you know, love, sex, romance is a minefield, and it's very, very easy for anybody to miss cues. But I'm wondering, is it a particular minefield for somebody who's on the autism spectrum, versus other challenges, such as being able to shop and make change and to get on a bus and travel, you know, which, depending on where one is on the spectrum, can be challenging, as well.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Are love, sex and romance more - is there more risk in that field?</s>PETER GERHARDT: Well, there's more risk in many ways, and it's more complex in many ways because, you know, the basis of a romantic relationship is this social connectedness, is this ability to communicate with your partner, which, you know, may be different for - is different for someone on this spectrum than it may be for someone who is neurotypical, or even two people on the spectrum may communicate somewhat different.</s>PETER GERHARDT: And then you get into the issue of sex, which I think a big issue across the spectrum. It doesn't matter where you fall on the spectrum. I work with guys who have more classic autism, who are less verbal, you know, and they're sexual beings. And how do we address their needs while still being respectful and safe and, you know, professional? It's a very, very complex issue.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, I want to go back to some calls from listeners. But first, I want to thank Jack and Kirsten for joining us and for having the, really, the courage to let their story be the one that's kicked off this conversation. Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith joined us from the studios of New England Public Radio in Amherst, Massachusetts. Jack and Kirsten, thanks very much for your time and for sharing this way.</s>KIRSTEN LINDSMITH: You're welcome.</s>JACK ROBISON: Thanks for having us as well.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure. And if you like to hear more about their story, you can find a link to The New York Times profile at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. Again, to both of you, thank you very much for your time today. I want to go then to some callers, and Linda in Oakland is joining us. Linda, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>LINDA: Hi. I have a 17-year-old son with autism. I want to make two points: One is not everybody with autism has Asperger's syndrome as Peter Gerhardt just pointed out. And there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of my son's needs to have social interaction with peers, to express his very normal, teenage, adolescent feelings toward others, et cetera. It's really, really, really a big problem.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What are your aspirations for him, Linda? What's his name?</s>LINDA: His name is Sam.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sam. So what are your aspirations for Sam in that regard? In the regard of love and being loved?</s>LINDA: I'd like him to be able to be with peers and have people know how to relate to him, to have people not be afraid of him. If a normal child in his - and I know the normal word is controversial. If a 17-year-old boy in his high school puts his arm around somebody, that's considered fine. My son puts his arm around somebody, he gets an incident report. So there's a lot of non-acknowledgement of the needs of many of these teenagers, adolescents, young adults who may not have language, who may have all the needs that everybody else has...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Linda, I want to interrupt to ask you to go back and clarify something because it's important. When you said, when your son puts his arm around somebody, he gets a - what are people thinking when he does that?</s>LINDA: They're thinking that he's touching somebody inappropriately.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: OK. That's what I wanted to have you come out and say because Pete has strong feelings about that whole issue. Pete, go ahead.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Well, you know, it's very true. And when I talk to professionals about the issue of sexuality and relationships on the autism spectrum, they often say, well, parents don't want to deal with this, parents are afraid to deal with this. And then when I talk to parents about the issue, they say, well, professionals don't want to deal with it. So what ends up is nobody deals with it, and it becomes, sort of this, you know, elephant in the living room that nobody is really dealing with. So we end up with situations where, you know, for her son, you know, simple physical contact is seen almost as a precursor to a sexual assault, where, in effect, it may be just simple physical contact in most cases.</s>PETER GERHARDT: And - which I think sort of goes back to this, you know, I have a friend Donna, who's on the spectrum, has Asperger's syndrome. And we were discussing social events one time and she commented that, you know, if you neurotypicals have all the skills, why don't you adapt for a while, damn it? And I really started to think that, you know, we wouldn't, I guess - and she said, if I was a person who used a wheelchair, you wouldn't say, well, I'd love to hire you but you have to walk first. And we often do that to folks on the spectrum because we fail to address the issue of translating to the other side. What do neurotypicals know about people with autism? What can they do to better interact? How can they understand this person? I really think we're missing a big part of the equation when we don't do that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: OK. Linda, thank you very much for your call. We appreciate it. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Our topic is autism, love and sex, and where they intersect. And we're asking you to tell your stories if you are on the autism spectrum or if you know somebody, if it's your children, close friend, to talk about love and the obstacles to it when - in expressing it when you're on the autism spectrum. And I want to go now to Michael in Fayette, Alabama. Michael, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>MICHAEL: Good afternoon. Thanks big time for taking my call. You can tell by my stuttering English already, as in so many other past episodes of TALK OF THE NATION, that I have Asperger's myself, but also adult ADD, very mild - night-time epilepsy, and I'm just getting over obsessive compulsive disorder. Doctor - what is his name again, please?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Dr. Pete Gerhardt.</s>MICHAEL: Dr. Gerhardt?</s>PETER GERHARDT: Yes.</s>MICHAEL: Oh, good. Would you comment on several thing sort of happened in my life that I've written down, how commonplace they are for others with Asperger's syndrome.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Michael, may I interrupt for just a second?</s>MICHAEL: Sure.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I just want to ask you to maybe go to the top two things on your list, just in the interest of time so that we can answer - thanks.</s>MICHAEL: OK. Uncomfortability from very early childhood about touching others in, quote, "loving," unquote ways. Reasons will vary from autistic person to autistic person. Those who have merely state ID cards instead of driver's licenses, which affects the viability to just date, period. Those with Asperger's who live in small towns or especially in rural areas, those with autistic spectrums. Affectability to participate actively in weekly group therapy encounter group for - most likely in large cities or medium-sized university town city...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Michael, I'm going to...</s>MICHAEL: ...hundred miles away.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Michael, I'm going to stop you there.</s>MICHAEL: And just one more, lack of financial knowledge. Any information, any answers he can give, especially parents of children, teenagers, I'll gladly appreciate. Thanks big time.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks, Michael, for actually that was a great list. We're coming up to a break, Pete, so maybe you want to take one or two of those points and then we'll go to the break.</s>PETER GERHARDT: OK. Well, you know, I think one of the words that he said, one of the - he said accessibility, and I think that's sort of the key to much of what we're talking about. I mean, it's hard to date if you don't have access to people who you'd like to date. And it's hard to go - he said, it's hard to go on a date if you don't have a car and if you live in a rural area. You know, just being able to access those situations is really critical. And, you know, for anybody like Michael, to be able to then, you know, translate themselves to other people, to explain themselves so they aren't nerds or they aren't geeks or they aren't just weird. That they, you know, they have a neurological difference that results in their acting like this goes a long way to promoting acceptance and accessibility.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I hear in both of our callers so far, a great deal of loneliness, which just hurts.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Yeah, I think it's sort of the major presenting problem for many of the adults that I work with, is loneliness.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: OK.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Now some of them like to be alone, but many of them are quite lonely.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: When we come back, we're going to have more with Peter Gerhardt and more of your calls. If you have autism or if your child does, what has gone in the way of love, and how have you navigated around it? Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Or send us an email: talk@npr.org. We're going to be back right after a short break. I'm John Donvan. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right now we are talking about love and autism. And the diagnosis of autism is relatively new. The first known case named in the medical literature, a man named Donald Triplett. He had really good memory and personal - perfect musical pitch, but he had no basic interest in people. He preferred to spin in circles, and he threw crazy, wild tantrums if his parents tried to intervene.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Back then - it was in the 1930s - doctors advised the parents of children with autism to do one thing, and that was to institutionalize them. Donald's parents refused. Times have changed now. These people with this diagnosis along the autism spectrum are integrated into all aspects of society, and they can lead fulfilling lives, with, often, the help of specialists who teach them to read social cues. And that is not something that necessarily comes easily to them.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: If you've been diagnosed with autism or Asperger's, or your child has, we want to ask you, what's gotten in the way of finding love and expressing love and enjoying love? And how have you gotten around it? Tell us your story. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: My guest right now is Peter Gerhardt. He helps adolescents learn the skills that will ease their transitions into adulthood, from how to behave in an elevator to how to navigate in the men's room.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And, Peter, I was just talking about this time before the greater social acceptance of people with autism and people - let's say people with mental disabilities into society, back in the era of institutionalization, which only ended 25 years ago, 30 years ago. Not only were a lot of people, by the tens of the hundreds of thousands in institutions, including many people with autism who were misdiagnosed as having an intellectual disability, not only were they there.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: But on this whole issue of love and sex, society had a very clear position. They did not want it happening. And people were forcibly sterilized to prevent the consequences of love and sex, and the sexes were kept segregated in these institutions. And now we're in a new world. But what about the concerns that motivated some of that: issues of birth control, issues of pregnancy, issues of disease, issues of a naive person being taken advantage of sexually, issues of parenting? Are all those part of what you need to deal with and part of what you're teaching?</s>PETER GERHARDT: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And I think today, still, the biggest factor is fear - fear not so much among folks on the spectrum, but fear among those of us who are neurotypical, and some of the issues you brought up about parenting, about disease.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Sexual abuse is a huge issue within the disability community at large, and it's one that the professional community hasn't really addressed and, in many ways, has allowed it to be - continue to be a big secret in the field, the prevalence of sexual abuse.</s>PETER GERHARDT: As individuals get up and - grow up and explore their own feelings and, you know, and then may want to date or be intimate, like without the necessary information to establish a relationship, to understand your body changing, to understand the physical reactions...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: The conversations just aren't happening.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Right, right. It is - it's still, you know, a taboo topic. You know, I've been at meetings where teachers will say, well, when he gets - you know, when he gets a - you know, when he - like when I say, an erection, he gets an erection, and they go, yeah, that's it. And it's - that word is taboo, almost, which drives me crazy.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, going back to some emails from you who are writing into us - and thank you again for your calls - we have an email from Denise Lockett(ph). She's writing this: My husband, we think, is undiagnosed Asperger's. He did not date anyone until we met when he was 28 years old. We met, and I was too kind to interrupt him on our first date, and he talked exclusively about his own interests. And right then I almost said that I would not see him again, but I told myself if he asked a single question about me and my interests, I would give him a chance. Just as the date ended, he did ask why I chose to go to law school.</s>And then she says: Today we have two children and we're happily married. He's gotten much better at communication. Still can't look people in the eye. We have signals at parties and social events when he goes overboard with the talking.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: That sounds like a great adjustment and partnership to me, Pete. I don't know about you.</s>PETER GERHARDT: Yeah. Absolutely. And, you know, I'm - I've met a number of fathers and a couple of mothers who got diagnosed when their son or daughter got diagnosed, which, you know, sort of leads me to believe that there's something admirable about being on the spectrum in terms of relationship. There's something attractive. People are getting - you know, neurotypicals are marrying people on the spectrum, and there's - so you know, there's reliability. There's - most people with Asperger's syndrome tend to be pretty honest.</s>PETER GERHARDT: You know, if your husband says he's going to be home at 5:00, chances are he'll be home at 5:00. I mean, there are desirable traits. I mean, it's - yes, it is, you know, a difference from neurotypicality or a disability, but there are still desirable traits that help to support a relationship.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. I want to bring in Henry in Jacksonville, Florida. Hi, Henry. You're on TALK OF THE NATION. Henry, are you still with us? I guess we lost him. Our apologies to you. Maria is in Charlotte, North Carolina. Maria, hi. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>MARIA: Hi. Thanks for taking my call.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sure. You're on and we're listening, so you can go ahead...</s>MARIA: Oh, hello.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sure.</s>MARIA: I actually have a son who was diagnosed with Asperger's - mild Asperger's. And based on that, my husband and I, who are both physicians, were also diagnosed (unintelligible) parents with Asperger's. And it's just been such a pleasure to read how much in the literature is out there about Asperger's. My husband and I met in New York City. And our greatest connection was that finally someone got me, and he understood that finally someone understood him. And we really connected very deeply along those lines. Both of us had had just one serious relationship at a time.</s>MARIA: We were never into dating. We were in our mid-30s when we met and got married. We became completely immersed with each other. We're no longer together. Eventually we just couldn't quite navigate the misunderstandings that we had when we were - once we were parents. We're still very friendly, but just craved a deeper emotional connection. And I think it's important that your expert talked about how there's such a deep loneliness. Even in a relationship when you are connected as an Asperger, there's still a deep sense of loneliness because it seems as if you just can't quite connect.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hmm. Pete, do you want to...</s>MARIA: So I think that with my son, who is diagnosed - he is 13 now. And we're both using what we've learned in our marriage and navigating our own Asperger's to kind of make sure that as he navigates dating and relationships and girls that, you know, we keep the conversation going and that he can learn ways to respect his partner and learn ways to respect his own needs and kind of have the ability to say I need some time off. I need to go away. You know, be open to having that back and forth becomes so easily to neurotypicals.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Maria, thanks very much for your call. Pete, do you want to comment on that?</s>PETER GERHARDT: You know, I would comment, but really, when she said, you know, that she and her husband were diagnosed as adults and how that was sort of a relief and, you know, the vast majority of adults that I've worked with who came to their diagnosis later in life as adults were thrilled to get the diagnosis, only because now everything made sense. You know, they weren't lazy. They weren't stupid. They weren't ignorant. They weren't arrogant. They weren't incompetent. They weren't wisecracking.</s>PETER GERHARDT: They had this identified neurological challenge. Now, this is going to get kind of complicated pretty quickly because with the new DSM-5 coming out, you know, we're losing the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. It's all going to be incorporated under autism spectrum disorder.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Just remind everyone briefly what the DSM-5 is going to be.</s>PETER GERHARDT: It's The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. It's put out by the American Psychiatric Association, and it's the bible for diagnosis. It tells you how to diagnose any number of psychiatric mental health conditions, and autism spectrum disorder is subsumed under that label in this book. So while there are very good clinical reasons for change - for dropping Asperger's syndrome and just having autism spectrum disorder as the label, I think we're going to have a cultural problem because there are people who their culture is identified as having Asperger. And you know, there are support groups.</s>PETER GERHARDT: And, you know, they may call each other Aspes(ph) as opposed to a person with, you know, Asperger's syndrome. And I think that's going to be a challenge for many people going forward, and many new diagnosis, that it isn't sort of a - I can now understand myself because of this separate category.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: A couple more emails. This one is from Eric: I'm from Red Bluff, California. I'm 39 and a half years old. I will be a 40-year-old virgin in September. I dated once, when I was 32. Thankfully, she broke up with me the following Tuesday from a weekend date. Other than that, I have had no love interest where the love was reciprocated. I did not expect to ever find love. I do not believe I could be loved. That is all.</s>This is from Amy in Burnsville, Minnesota: My daughter is 24 years old and has high-functioning autism. She's highly trusting of others, particularly of young men, and does not always accurately predict the behavior of others. This places her at risk for being manipulated into harmful emotional, physical or sexual situations. And because she uses the Internet a lot to talk, in quotes, to people, so she's at risk for Internet predators. It is very stressful for us as parents. She's basically concerned that her daughter is too trusting to be out there.</s>PETER GERHARDT: You know, it really is a big problem, and it's complicated again by the fact that this is an area that professionally we know very little about, about how to teach people to understand this social nuance, how to understand the motivations about how to keep yourself safe, like, you know, simple things. If you go to meet somebody that you met online, like, bring somebody with you or, you know, always have your cellphone with you or, you know, very common sense things. But because the person is on the spectrum, we sometimes tend to not even address it on that level.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. One more caller. I want to bring in Miranda from Birmingham, Alabama. Hi, Miranda. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>MIRANDA: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I'm so overjoyed to hear your topic today. I am the mother of a son with Asperger's. He's nine, about to be 10 in a couple of weeks. And as he's reaching adolescence and growing out of being, you know, as he's becoming more - having more social situations, I've been thinking a lot about this topic, love. In particular, will he find love and how will he react to social situations for the rest of his life? He has taken a social skills class that I enrolled him in last year. He has a best friend now, so he's definitely progressing. But as far as affection, I'm definitely finding that interesting because, you know, we laugh - he just walks up - the way he loves on us is he just kind of walks up and lets us hug him. You know, it's all on his own terms. But the topic is just fascinating because I'm a very social, affectionate person, and I've definitely had to tailor that around him.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Miranda, thanks very much for sharing your story. I want to go Darier(ph) in - sorry, Daria(ph) in Brewster, Massachusetts. Hi, Daria. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>DARIA: Hello.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air.</s>DARIA: Hi.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi.</s>DARIA: I'm an occupational therapist. I work in the schools, and this is a great subject, and I'm glad that you're bringing it up. And you're right. It's often taboo. But we - I actually co-run a social skills group, and a lot of the kids in the group are on the spectrum. Some aren't. And this subject does come up quite a bit, subject of dating and how you can tell somebody that you like them. And I found that - we do social skills training. We do actual - we'll write social stories and we'll write a script about a specific situation, and we'll do role playing so that the student can feel comfortable about communicating that they're attracted to another student. And I found that it actually - it helps a lot to kind of do that practice beforehand, and I will actually, you know, role play with the student or he'll role play with other students in the group.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You're talking - you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Daria, thank you for your point on that. And Pete, you know, it comes out - she's involved in this work, and it suggests that there are programs, that there are steps to take. For people who are listening, either adults who are on the spectrum or for parents of kids, many of whom we've heard from today, what do they do? Where do they go? How do they get help?</s>PETER GERHARDT: Well, if you can find other people with Asperger's syndrome who are in relationships, those are probably your best guides, because they've sort of been there and done that, so they can sort of give you, you know, information straight from their experience. There are people who do similar things that I do, where the previous caller did, like looking at social skills groups. I mean, I really do think - probably the best set of skills that I can try to give anybody are self-advocacy skills, which include, you know, dating skills and being able to be safe and how do you - again, I keep coming up to with this word translate. How do you translate yourself to another person so they can understand you more?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: But what do you mean by that?</s>PETER GERHARDT: I think oftentimes, because our perception in the neurotypical world of somebody on the spectrum, especially somebody with Asperger's syndrome, is that they're - they can be arrogant. They could be rude. They can be inconsiderate. We don't think of them as actually having a neurological disorder because they're so verbal. But if someone can actually say, by the way, this is why and I need your feedback to help me do this, now all of a sudden we can understand that behavior in a way that makes it much more acceptable, much more normative. So being able to understand yourself in that way, whether you're in a romantic relationship or not, you know, is critical.</s>PETER GERHARDT: And I do want to do very quickly just - I want to point out again this whole spectrum issue, that it's not just, you know, adults and adolescents with Asperger's syndrome. You know, people with more classic autism like I work with at, you know, the McCarton School and a couple of other programs, the PAAL program that I work at, you know, they want friends and they're capable of friendships too. It just is the amount of effort that the neurological - neurologically typical community has to make to become their friend.</s>PETER GERHARDT: And one of the really nice things that I think about having a friend on the spectrum is that if you ever find in the spectrum - if somebody likes you and they're on the spectrum, they just like you. Like, they're not after your hot sister. They don't want your cool car, like, you know, there is something pure about that relationship that I think is valuable. And unless we take the time to find it, to encourage it, to support it, I think we're missing out on something big.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: But I hear in everything you're saying you feel you have a very, very long way to go.</s>PETER GERHARDT: A long way to go, yes.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Well, we're at the beginning. Pete Gerhardt, thanks very much for doing this part of it. Pete joined us from our bureau in New York. He is chairperson of the Scientific Council for the Organization for Autism Research. He is also the director of education at the Upper School at the McCarton School, which in New York City is a school for autistic children. Tomorrow, we will be talking about second opinions. When you receive a diagnosis from your doctor, sometimes it's best to check in with another doctor or several other doctors. But it can be hard to do. Join us for that tomorrow. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan in Washington.

Consumers and farmers will soon be on their own when it comes to finding out which pesticides are being sprayed on what. The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to stop publishing its survey tracking pesticide use.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From NPR News, this is Day to Day. The federal government will no longer tell us what pesticides are used on our fruits and vegetables. It's because of budget cuts. Farmers and environmentalists are not happy about that. Marketplace's Janet Babin is here, and Janet, what kind of information was in these reports and who was using them?</s>JANET BABIN: Well, Madeleine, the surveys contained detailed information and data about the types and amounts of pesticides applied crops. Farmers would use these reports to track trends and see, you know, what pesticides were working for their neighbors, and activists, of course, would use the data to check out if the pesticides were showing up in the environment where they weren't supposed to be showing up. Chemical companies like Monsanto used these government surveys to crosscheck with their own data, and the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, used the reports to decide how chemicals should be regulated and figure out which pesticides, if any, where the biggest threat to public health.</s>JANET BABIN: Now, I spoke today with Fawn Pattison at Toxic Free North Carolina. She's an activist group leader, and her group used to use these reports on a regular basis, especially to track pesticides like methyl bromide in the state of North Carolina that are used on tomatoes. Now, she's going to have to get the info from the private sector, but that's going to be cost-prohibitive for her small non-profit group, whereas the government reports were free.</s>Ms. FAWN PATTISON (Executive Director, Toxic Free NC): I was just looking at the farm bill, you know, which has a tax break for resource centers, and we're cutting this eight-million-dollar program that has a huge impact on public health and the environment and data reliability. It doesn't make any sense.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, Janet, it sounds like these reports were really useful to lots of people. Why did the USDA cut them - cut the program?</s>JANET BABIN: Well, it seems it was a process of elimination, Madeleine. It was an eight-million-dollar program in a 160-million annual budget, and when budgets are tight, as a lot of us know, every dollar counts. I spoke with Joe Reilly from the National Agricultural Statistic Service about this. He's acting administrator there. And he says it was - with the process of elimination that, you know, he couldn't get rid of reports that directly influence commodities markets. Things like the monthly crop report and live stock reports, we had to have them, and he also didn't want to cut direct aid to farmers for disaster relief or crop insurance. That had to stay in the budget. And since there are private companies that compile this data, a few of them, the USDA considered that these reports were the most expandable, but Riley told me that he knows, this program elimination isn't really ideal.</s>JANET BABIN: Mr. JOSEPH T. REILLY (Acting Administrator, National Agriculture Statistic Service): It will be difficult. It's a void and we do know that there's a need for the information out there, but we had to make some tough budget calls.</s>JANET BABIN: And he wants to see the funding restored.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, if it is restored, how quickly could the program be back up and running?</s>JANET BABIN: It could happen pretty quickly. Most of the data is collected in the fall, after the harvest, and all the infrastructure's in place. It's just a question of finding that eight million dollars.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Thank you, Janet. That's Janet Babin of Public Radio's daily business show Marketplace.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: The world's worst movie director when Day to Day continues.

When faced with a major medical decision, it can be difficult for patients to determine when it's appropriate to seek a second opinion. Asking another doctor can help catch misdiagnoses or prevent unnecessary treatments, but they can also be a waste of time and resources. Dawna Harwell, cancer survivor Laura Landro, assistant managing editor, Wall Street Journal Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer, American Cancer Society

JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm John Donvan in Washington. Your doctor tells you that what you have is serious, very serious. And while some of us may simply take in that news and then follow our doctor's advice on what to do, put ourselves into that doctor's hands, many of us choose a different course almost right away, not just to take one doctor's word for it but to exercise a distinct patient privilege: going out to find a second opinion.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Case in point Dawna Harwell, she is a horse trainer and a cancer survivor who joins us now by phone from her home in Collinsville, Texas. Dawna, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>DAWNA HARWELL: Thank you, how are you?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We're good, thank you, and we want to use you as our case history to launch this discussion. So you were told in 2008, not that long ago, that you likely had ovarian cancer. So what happened after you received that news?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: After I received that news, I - they still weren't conclusive on what I had. So I wasn't comfortable with my doctor, so I made an online request to MD Anderson and did a self-referral down there and went down for a second opinion or, actually, a diagnosis, a definite diagnosis.</s>DAWNA HARWELL: At that point, I went back and forth between a couple of departments and was finally decided that I had follicular lymphoma after a surgical biopsy, because none of the other biopsies were conclusive, and none of my other tests were conclusive.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So you were right, that your first doctor was wrong?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: They just didn't have any idea, and it wasn't...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right or wrong?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: Right or wrong, and they weren't - didn't seem that concerned about it, and yet when it was finally diagnosed, it was a Stage 4 diagnosis.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, one question right away: What gave you that feeling that you needed to go for a second opinion?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: Just because I was being bounced around between doctors.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And what difference, the bottom line, what difference does it make that you made that choice to go looking for another opinion?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: The difference is it probably saved my life, because I wasn't - they made sure to know exactly what I had before I was treated. Even - there's so many different forms of lymphoma that until you know exactly which one you have, I mean, you can be given the wrong process of treatment.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And how are you doing now?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: I'm good. I am in remission and clean and on six-month checkups.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Great news. And finally, what would be your advice to somebody who has that same nagging feeling you do?</s>DAWNA HARWELL: Don't hesitate. I mean, that's - you know, that's what it's all about. Those records are your records, and if, you know, when you're given a, you know, any type of diagnosis that it's, you know, severe like cancer or anything like that, I mean, always go for a second opinion.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Dawna, thanks very much for sharing your story.</s>DAWNA HARWELL: You're welcome.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All the best to you. We would like to hear from our listeners who have their own experiences with second opinions. Patients: What happened when you asked for a second opinion? And doctors: We want to hear your side of this, too. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Later on in our program, one of the most popular crime writers in America, Elmore Leonard, on the return of the show "Justified." But first we're going to continue our conversation on getting a second medical opinion. Laura Landro is the assistant managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, and her piece, "What if The Doctor is Wrong?," ran earlier this week, and she joins us now from Palm Springs, California. Laura, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Glad to be here.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So how common is Dawna's story of a second opinion actually uncovering a misdiagnosis or a non-diagnosis in the first place?</s>LAURA LANDRO: Well, you know, it's unfortunately a little more common than you realize. There's all sorts of statistics out there. Diagnostic errors can be, you know, as many as 15 percent of the time, in cancer diagnosis 12 or 13 percent, in some cancers 50 percent if they're very hard to diagnose.</s>LAURA LANDRO: And there are some statistics out there, as well, that say 30 percent of people who sought a second opinion on their own and about 18 percent of those who were required to do so by their insurance company found that there was disagreement.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And what's the process of resolving a disagreement?</s>LAURA LANDRO: Well, that's - you know, sometimes a third opinion is necessary. You know, in fact, Medicare will pay not only 80 percent of the cost of a second opinion when there's a major surgery or procedure, but they will pay for the cost of a third opinion, as well, at the same rate, with the idea that you need to get some kind of consensus.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Now obviously, sooner or later you're just going to have to make a decision, and you could go on getting opinions forever if you could afford it, but there is - when you have a major procedure that's life-altering, life-saving, potentially, you really do, you owe it to yourself, as Dawna said, to get the best advice you can.</s>LAURA LANDRO: And remember that not all doctors are going to agree on everything. Their treatments may differ. Their approach may differ. How aggressive they're going to be may differ.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, I wanted to get to the treatment issue, and you've already gotten to it. I mean, there is not just the issue of what's wrong but there very much could be disagreement and difference of opinions on what to do about it.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Exactly.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What are some of the classic choices that you've come across in your reporting where somebody had a choice between two difficult or two perhaps confusing options to make?</s>LAURA LANDRO: Well, there are so - you know, prostate cancer is one of the classic examples. You know, there are - there's so much discussion right now when you're diagnosed with prostate cancer. Do you want to take this high-tech, robotic surgery? Do you want to have incontinence and impotence as a possible side effect? Do you want to do watchful waiting?</s>LAURA LANDRO: And a lot of that's going to depend if - there's a wonderful book out now, Jerome Groopman and his wife wrote, called "Your Medical Mind," and it's about trying to discern what your own values are. Are you someone who really wants to just get at the problem right away and be really aggressive, you want to cut that cancer out, you want to go for the surgery?</s>LAURA LANDRO: Or are you more of a less aggressive, let's see if something less invasive works first? And you and your doctor have to sort of work those things out together.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So there is not necessarily a right scientific medical answer on what to do.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Not always, in fact rarely, probably, unless it's like this is a really aggressive cancer, it's going to kill you in two weeks, you'd better get out there and do something about it. (Unintelligible) pointed out earlier.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I want to bring some listeners - excuse me for interrupting - into our conversation. And Kate(ph) is in Pensacola, Florida. Kate, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>KATE: Hi, I had just been diagnosed with cancer and went through a surgery technique and then after that was presented with chemotherapy options and of course radiation following that. The second opinion after considering chemotherapy, was that this - the initial prognosticating index that the first doctor gave, was using data from 1992. And other prognosticating indexes showed that chemotherapy was of no measurable benefit in my case.</s>KATE: So I really urge listeners to look at the statistics that back up what your doctor is trying to do. Maybe he's trying to sell you something that, you know, has $5,000 to $55,000 in cost benefit per treatment, like chemo. And then when it comes to radiation, I was presented initially with only one type, which is on rather old machines where they were trying to sell time, had significant damage to peripheral organs such as the lungs and the heart, and wasn't told about 15 other types of radiation that are more up-to-date, more focused, less damaging.</s>KATE: And all this can be learned by personal research on the Net, although it took a tremendous amount of time to find this out.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah, I was going to say, Kate, it sounds like you needed to do an awful lot of work and to have a lot of energy and a lot of push on this yourself.</s>KATE: Yes, and it was disappointing that my doctor didn't want to educate me because he wanted to sort of send me down the mainstream pipeline that's endorsed by, you know, his insurance, indemnification, to send you through chemo and wide-beam radiation. And it is the most profitable of things. So, you know, you have to bear in mind that that may be a motive for some large doctors - some large hospital groups.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Kate, thanks very much for sharing your story. Laura Landro of the Wall Street Journal, is it the case sometimes that doctors themselves will seek a second opinion? And I've heard of cases where they'll put together a team from across several disciplines to try to help them...</s>LAURA LANDRO: Well, that's like a tumor board. If you go to one of these big breast cancer centers, they'll have a tumor board because, you know, the surgeon may want to do surgery, the radiologist may want to do radiation, and they may be able to come up with what's the best thing for this patient. Let's reach a consensus within our organization.</s>LAURA LANDRO: You're also seeing a lot more pathologists within their own institutions will have a second pair of eyes, what they call secondary review, because pathology, it's a little bit of an art, so is radiology. You're looking at images. You're looking at slides, and you're trying to figure out what is that, and things can differ.</s>LAURA LANDRO: We've seen this happen in my family, where things were read one way, and, you know, it was read to be a tumor, and it turned out to be scar tissue. So, you know, with someone more experienced looking at it - and you do have to really hope that within - I think you can count on a lot of doctors, well, they're trying to do the right thing.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah, I don't know if you'll mind doing this, but I know because you alluded to it in your Wall Street Journal piece that you actually had a serious medical condition, and you went for a second opinion.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Oh, yes, and I've written a book about it called "Survivor." Before the TV show, I had the name. But anyway, yes, I was diagnosed with leukemia, now, 20 years ago, CML, and the only - you know, I knew I had to get a bone marrow transplant, but there were three different approaches to the transplants being done at three major cancer centers.</s>LAURA LANDRO: And I really had to study the data and look at the long-term survival rates and look at, you know, what was going to be best for my disease, my condition, my stage of disease at the time that I had it.</s>LAURA LANDRO: And, you know, it was kind of a tough call, but in the end, I went with the center that had the most experience, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and which also had the best long-term disease-free survival for people with my situation.</s>LAURA LANDRO: And it was tough. You know, I had to 3,000 miles away from home, and I was fortunate to have insurance and an employer who allowed me to do that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: When you say it was tough, do you mean that it was wearing, or do you mean that you had to fight to get this?</s>LAURA LANDRO: Well, you know, it was - you have to remember this was 20 years ago now. I think, you know, people often ask me will doctors get mad. And at the time, I think doctors were not used to - my doctors in New York weren't used to having someone question here's what you're going to do and ask them, you know, come in with note papers and ask them questions and give them statistics that I pulled down off of, you know, medical studies.</s>LAURA LANDRO: They weren't used to that. I think - this was - I'm really dating myself here, but this was before the Internet, and...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah, but you were a reporter, so that helped.</s>LAURA LANDRO: I was a reporter, and I was a little bit at - obviously at a big advantage for that, and I had a lot of friends who were scientists, and I pulled together a team of people who really helped. And you can do that as an individual, as well.</s>LAURA LANDRO: But I really had to make a decision that was a tough one, because it meant leaving where I had started, you know, down the process, and it also meant again going 3,000 miles from home. And - but it was very much a decision, it was also based on a feeling about the doctors, a feeling about the hospital, a feeling about - that they cared, you know, a little bit - you get a little into, not just the diagnostics, but how do I feel about the treatment (unintelligible) people.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We're hearing that same note from Dawna, that it's a feeling that you get. Laura Landro is assistant managing editor for the Wall Street Journal, and you can find a link to her piece "What If Your Doctor Is Wrong?" on our website. Just go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. Laura, thanks very much for joining us on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>LAURA LANDRO: Thank you so much.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We're talking about medical second opinions, when to get one, how to ask, and up next we're going to be talking with a doctor about the doctor's side of second opinions and when it may not make sense to get one.</s>Patients, tell us: What happened to you when you asked for a second opinion? And doctors, we do want to hear your side, too. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. I'm John Donvan. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan. Most of the time, when we go to the doctor's office with a problem, we get a diagnosis: a sinus infection maybe or a sprained ankle. And then we follow the doctor's advice. End of story.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sometimes, though, there is much more at stake, and patients will go looking for a second opinion. One recent study of cancer cases showed that about nine percent of original diagnoses were later changed as the result of the patient getting a second opinion.</s>So patients, we want to know from you: What happened when you asked for a second opinion? And doctors, we'd like to hear your side of this as well. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>So patients, we want to know from you: So we're taking your calls, and we want to now speak with Ryan(ph) in Denver, Colorado. Ryan, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>RYAN: Hi, this is Ryan. I think that my comment would be that whenever a patient feels uncomfortable or uncertain about their physician or the diagnosis, I really recommend that they get a second opinion. I think that patients need to feel very confident and trusting in their physician, and if there's any equivocation, and certainly if it's grave or life-threatening, then I like for them to have that second opinion.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Are you speaking to us as a doctor?</s>RYAN: I am.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Oh, OK.</s>RYAN: I'm a younger physician, and you know, I think that it's important that the patients really trust in the relationship that they have before you embark on any particularly aggressive treatment plan. The other thing that I would suggest to patients is that if they feel the need for a second opinion, I really do think that they should discuss that with their primary doctor, and oftentimes, you know, I can try and help facilitate that.</s>RYAN: I can provide them all of the records that we have so far, the tests that we've done, and you know, maybe suggest that, oh, this research center really specializes in what we think you have, and that might be a good place for you to start looking...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, thanks very much, Ryan, I appreciate your call. I want to bring now into the conversation Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld. He is the deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, and he joins us from the studios at their offices in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Lichtenfeld, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Thank you, John, pleasure to be with you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So we've heard and just heard from a doctor and from several patients who have been talking about their experiences in seeking second opinions. I have a few questions, and one of them is actually put - I was going to put to you, but it comes in the form of an email. Del(ph) from Florida puts it this way, and it's very blunt. He says: Doesn't asking a second opinion insult the doctor? How could it not? You're saying that you don't trust his opinion.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And I would assume that maybe that inhibition exists in a lot of patients, that they feel they're going to make an enemy of the doctor if they say I want to go somewhere else for more advice.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Well, when you have a life-threatening condition, such as cancer, it's your life, it's your decision, and if the doctor gets insulted, maybe it's time to get another doctor. I think that many physicians will understand that when you get into a complicated medical circumstance, that having another set of eyes and ears, so to speak, to go over things is not a bad idea.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: And I think that many physicians that I know will actually encourage people if they have a question to seek a second opinion. So if your doctor is going to be insulted, let your doctor be insulted; it's your life, take charge, do what you need to do to make yourself comfortable.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: How does it work among you, though, as colleagues if you were to give a second opinion that essentially, let's say, corrects or updates or turns out in the end to be better than your colleague's? Does that put your colleague in a bad light? You know, say it happens more than once or twice or three times.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Well, you know, I don't think it puts the colleague in a bad light. Understand, as was mentioned earlier in the prior segment, medicine, there's a lot of art to medicine, as well as science. So not everything is as clear-cut, and different people have different approaches.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: And as Ryan just mentioned, sometimes you may have a better comfort level with one doctor versus another, and that's a very important consideration. I can't emphasize that enough. So you know, I will say I've seen situations, and I think something to be cautious about, I've seen situations where someone who – a surgical opinion, asks for another opinion, and they gave them somebody else in the same group; that got a little testy because I don't think the second doctor necessarily wanted to overrule the first doctor.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: They know each other, work with each other every day in the same hospital, same - essentially the same practice. But you know, again, it comes down to the bottom line: Life-threatening conditions, serious conditions. If you have the option and opportunity and the time to get the second opinion, and you feel that you would feel better from having that opinion, do it and not hesitate.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And is there any etiquette to this that we need to know about?</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: I don't know that there's an etiquette. Ryan also made another excellent point. Hopefully you have someone who's your primary source of care. Unfortunately, not everyone has that these days, but a primary care family physician, a primary care internist, can be a critical ally in helping you get through that process.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: The etiquette simply is once you've made the arrangement, the decision to do that, is to say to your doctor this is something I want to do, and this is not necessarily a reflection on you personally, but this is important for me and my family, and just make that doctor aware that you're pursuing that second opinion.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Jim from Rochester, New York, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JIM: Yes, I have been complaining for a year, a year and a half to my primary physician about a coughing and clearing my throat and phlegm situation. And finally I bugged him enough where he sent me to a throat doctor. And the throat doctor concluded that I had laryngeal, pharyngeal acid reflux and to see him in a couple of months and take a couple of pills that he said and a diet.</s>JIM: I somehow just couldn't buy that. So I had an upcoming appointment with - for a colonoscopy. So I decided to go in to see my doctor that was going to do the colonoscopy, because he is a little familiar with that area, he comes - I guess he's from the throat down, and he considered doing an endoscope, an endoscopy, which we had done, and he spotted something and said I should go to a throat doctor.</s>JIM: And I said I just got through two weeks ago, and he said, well, it may be a tumor, and the long story short, I went back, and in effect they did find that it was a throat cancer, actually a tumor on my tongue. And Stage 2, and then I did my seven weeks of radiation.</s>JIM: But my point is that I was basically misdiagnosed. I was a self-advocate and moved on and asked another doctor and got the right answer. It was...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I'm curious, Jim, you're the third caller to mention that something bothered me, something didn't feel right with me. And I want to ask Dr. Lichtenfeld, the lesson seems to be to listen to your instincts on this.</s>JIM: I have a comment later on that one.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sure, stay on with us, Jim.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: I don't think there's any question that we know our bodies better than anyone else. And when something is amiss, and you're not comfortable with the answers you're getting, it is perfectly appropriate to seek that other opinion. Now, there comes a time when you say the repetitive opinion-seeking might not be appropriate or productive.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: But it comes down to the fact that we know ourselves better than anyone else does, and I think we always have to keep that in mind. And the other point I would make is that in our medical system today, unfortunately, it's becoming a lot more fragmented, and that means more of us going forward are going to have to be responsible for our own health, be our own advocates and take charge and take responsibility of how we live, what we do and how we obtain our medical care and how we engage in seeking that care.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Jim, you wanted to add something else?</s>JIM: Yes, yes, and amen to that, and my radiology oncologist told me that - she said I always listen to my patients because invariably they are correct. And my type of cancer, by the way, which is a very important situation I would like to get out there, was caused by HPV virus, human papillomavirus, which is similar to what Michael Douglas the actor has.</s>JIM: And I think that I was getting not the runaround, but I wasn't getting the attention because I'm a non-drinker, non-smoker, and this was caused by a virus, which...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Let's see how...</s>JIM: And my primary physician was not aware of...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Jim, I'm sorry to jump in. I just want to see how your experience compares to our next caller's, and thanks very much for your call.</s>JIM: Thank you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thank you. I want to bring in Marjorie(ph) from Charlottesville, Virginia. Hi, Marjorie, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>MARJORIE: Oh, well, hi. I'm not a patient. I just wanted to make - this great discussion, I wanted to make the comment that I've been in the health care industry for about 40 years, watching development and changes. And we're - you know, we've gone from a system that was very paternalistic, where the patient really had no, not many rights and not much responsibility, to a system where we are trying to become more consumer - more of a consumer.</s>MARJORIE: And so we have not only rights but responsibilities as patients to educate ourselves, to follow our instincts, and there's just really in this day and age, with online resources, there is just no excuse for not being able to access journals and educating yourself as intensely and deeply as you can about any diagnosis you get, not just getting a second opinion, which is, you know, essential sometimes, but also having - being armed with knowledge so that you...</s>MARJORIE: You know, because there - I see instances with patients who, because they dove into something, they really became an expert in their particular diagnosis. I mean, they knew as much, if not more than their particular physician.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Marjorie, I hear you on that, and I thank you for your call. But I do want to put the other side of that to Dr. Lichtenfeld, which is the - we are talking about people coming in and asking for second opinions, seeking second opinions when we're talking about complicated cases such as cancer and complicated treatments. Prior to your being an oncologist, you did primary care, did you not?</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: I have been a primary care internist at one point in my career. Yes.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So at that level, you might be dealing with aches and pains and sore throats, and let's say something like a chronic nerve problem, somebody has sciatica. And you know what they need to do for sciatica, which is, essentially, is to, I think, in most cases, to ride it out, maybe with some painkillers. But there's not a great deal to be done.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: A patient who comes in seeking a second or a third or a fourth opinion because they're frustrated by the pain, or a patient who comes in with something discovered off of the Internet because of that kind of research that Marjorie's talking about, and that kind of energy and devotion, would that sort of patient not drive you crazy after a while?</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: The patient is - partnership is the best way to approach medical care. So I will never say to somebody, don't go to the Internet. I will say at some point, you have to have trust in the people who are caring for you, because they are - hopefully, have your best interests at heart.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: But I think what happens sometimes is that there's a lot of information on the Internet. In fact, I wrote an editorial recently on the topic, calling it basically the Wild - similar to the Wild West. It's untamed. And so there's quality information on the Internet, and there's information on the Internet that's not quality. And it's sometimes very hard to tell the difference.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: And you can see someone - for example, the back pain that you're mentioning. People will seek the answer, the right answer, which is sometimes - for many patients, don't do anything particularly different. Call me if there's a particular change in your condition. They don't accept that and they want something else, and eventually they may end up in certain treatments. They may end up in surgery.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: When they - the benefit, shall we say, for the risk, is not worthwhile. And we know that. Now, that doesn't mean back surgery's bad, but it means that some patients may drive the process to the point where something gets done to them by someone that is not really in the patient's best interest.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We're talking about the issue of second opinions. Our guest right now is Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for - chief - deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. And we're taking your stories of seeking second opinions on medical procedures and medical diagnoses. And I want to bring in Brian in Portland, Oregon. Brian, hi. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>BRIAN: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. Yeah. I just wanted to talk about how it seems that doctors are very well-trained at doing, like, emergency room diagnoses where they can diagnose within 17 seconds, which I believe is an actual statistic. But when it comes to a more complicated case, they seem very flummoxed. And I don't think doctors have any training in trying to figure out a more complex case. And I just - I wonder if there's any movement to train doctors better in that way, because it seems if they come up with a first diagnosis in 17 seconds, and if that's wrong, then they have no idea.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hmm. Dr. Lichtenfeld?</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Well, I can't speak to making a diagnosis in 17 seconds, and I would go back to a comment that was made earlier. Sometimes - not sometimes. I felt all the time, you had to really listen to what the patients had to say, because if you listen carefully, you might get a clue as to what's going on.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Let me address what I think the real concern is today. We are not training primary care physicians in this country. And as part of the training of primary care physicians, they have experience across a broad spectrum of illnesses. They are taught - particularly internists and family physicians - are taught how to bring the pieces of the puzzle together.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Instead, we're having a fragmented system, highly specialized, people going off in different directions, and nobody - captain of the ship, shall we say - nobody in charge, nobody who's bringing all of it together. That's the risk we have. And the point - if the point is that we're not able to have a person to synthesize all of this, that's valid. They're becoming a vanishing breed, and our health care in this country is going to suffer as a result of that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks very much for your call. I want to bring in Peter in Naples, Florida. Peter, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>PETER: Good afternoon. I went to a urologist at one point and - for a totally different problem. And during my inspection, the fellow found what he thought was a bump on my prostate. And he was very excited, very urgent to get me into the surgery and get a biopsy. I felt really, really rushed, kind of pressured by this guy, so I went to both my family physician and another urologist. And as it turned out, neither one of them felt that I have any problem at all, that I didn't have any cancer. And I just, you know, I felt so glad that I did that and just, you know, relieved.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And, Peter, why did you trust the second opinion versus the first opinion?</s>PETER: Well, I got two more opinions, one from a primary care physician and one from another specialist.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, I guess that's what Laura Landro was talking about earlier in the program about consensus, because I wanted to ask, Dr. Lichtenfeld, again, it's just I do wonder, you know, when do you stop getting opinions? Given, as you say, it's an art form, diagnosis.</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: Well, you know, feeling a lump in a prostate is obviously unsettling. I can't speak to any individual case, and sometimes some doctors are better at feeling things than other doctors. So it's very hard to say. But having seen, I guess, it's four different doctors, you've come to the opinion that there's nothing there, clearly, you're aware of the situation. And I assume that you're going to follow over time. And sometimes taking time is not the wrong thing to do. And in this case, that may - particularly with prostate cancer, that's not bad advice.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So just to some up - and we only have about 25 seconds, Dr. Lichtenfeld. I asked you before where's the etiquette of it, and what I really meant is do people need to be shy about telling one surgeon or one oncologist, I am going to talk to somebody else? Can you just say, I'm going to do that?</s>LEONARD LICHTENFELD: It's your health. It's your life. Don't be shy. Do what you think is right for you. If you want second opinion, go get it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks very much. Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld is deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. He joined us from studios in Atlanta, Georgia. And coming up, Elmore Leonard once said: I try to live out the parts that readers skip. It's a rule that has worked well through 45 novels and a number of movies and TV shows. The crime writer joins us next to talk about his latest. I'm John Donvan. It's TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

As gas prices soar, many owners of large SUVs are trading in their vehicles for smaller gas-sipping cars. They're finding that their big sport utilities aren't worth much as trade-ins.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: We just talked about the high price of oil. More than 130 dollars a barrel so, some owners of SUVs, well, they are having second thoughts. They are trying to get rid of them.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Right. Well, good luck with that. It's tough to unload a gas guzzler these days because there is a glut on the market, too few buyers. From Seattle, NPR's Wendy Kaufman reports.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: Two years ago Ian Vanrinen (ph) bought a used mid-sized SUV. He wanted the power of a V8 engine to pull his boat, but now he wants to swap his SUV for something smaller, and more fuel efficient.</s>Mr. IAN VANRINEN: And here we are at my Lincoln Aviator. I'm hopping in, and closing the door.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: Vanrinen has been trying to sell his sport utility for weeks. It looks practically brand new, and has lots of bells and whistles. In the beginning, he says, there was a fair amount of interest, but not anymore.</s>Mr. IAN VANRINEN: It's kind of a neat car for the right person, it's the perfect car. For everybody else, it's still a gas guzzling SUV.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: Beyond the price of gasoline and concern for the environment, the housing slump has meant that many construction workers are no longer buying SUVs and pick-ups. What's more, there's a trend toward so-called crossover vehicles which offer SUV features, but on a cart chassis with better gas mileage. Vanrinen considered using his SUV as a trade in, and went to a couple of dealers. What he heard wasn't encouraging.</s>Mr. IAN VANRINEN: They all pretty much told me that right now, the SUV market the way it is, the trade in value that they are going to be able to give me is probably going to be, you know, 5,000 dollars less than maybe what I want to get out of the car. And so, if I do choose to trade it in, just to get out of this situation, I'm probably looking at a 5,000 dollars hit.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: In other words, he would get 5,000 dollars less then he owes on the vehicle. In automobile loan parlance, it's called an upside down loan.</s>Mr. MIKE LEVINE (General Manager, Honda Auto Center): It's no different really than subprime thing with the homes. When the land values drop, it puts people in a negative equity position, and with a car, it's the same exact thing.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: That's Mike Levine, General Manager of the Honda Auto Center in Bellevue, Washington, one of the largest Honda dealers in the Pacific North West. He says that in the past 90 days, the number of customers with negative equity in their SUVs has shot up remarkably. The result of a kind of chain reaction.</s>Mr. MIKE LEVINE (General Manager, Honda Auto Center): We saw a used car market change dramatically where customers just weren't buying that higher-end used vehicle nearly as much. And real quick, what that did was back up all the dealers with inventory. The dealers stopped buying the inventory. The values dropped and, in kind of a free fall.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: He adds, it's hard to look a customer in the eye, and tell him that although he owes 26,000 dollars, the dealership can offer only 14,000 on a trade-in because that's all it can sell it for in the current climate. According to CNW Marketing Research, nationwide in the month of April, the average used SUV took more than 66 days to sell, versus 48 days a year ago. Tom Webb, Chief Economist at Mannheim Corporation, which operates the nation's largest wholesale auctions of used cars, says he doesn't think the SUV market has hit bottom.</s>Mr. TOM WEBB (Chief Economist, Mannheim Corporation): It looks like in April, in terms of the SUVs, that the prices were starting to bottom out, that the market was starting to clear. But so far, in the first ten days of May, it wasn't good.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: Prices for full-sized SUV's were still going down, meanwhile prices for compacts, were up. In the current environment, those who want to buy a used sport utility may be in luck. Stanley Ng of Toyota of Bellevue, points to the large collection of used SUVs on the lot, Lexus, Jeep Cherokees, Ford Explorers, and just about everything else.</s>Mr. STANLEY NG (Sales, Toyota of Bellevue): Right now, if you were a motivated buyer for a SUV, I think the management will do whatever it takes to sell you a car. You know, it's definitely buyer's market.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: On the other hand, if you are interested in a fuel efficient Toyota Prius, you may not find one here, and if you want to buy a new Prius, you may have to put your name on a waiting list.</s>WENDY KAUFMAN: Wendy Kaufman, NPR News, Seattle.

NPR's Neal Conan reads from listener comments on previous show segments, including responses to a conversation about independent voters, and a video depicting U.S. Marines desecrating the bodies of Taliban fighters.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: It's Tuesday, the day we read from your emails and Web comments. And first, an update on Operation Migration, the program that teaches young whooping cranes the migration route south for the winter. The birds are led by an ultralight plane they're raised to believe is their mother. We talked with Joe Duff, co-founder and CEO of Operation Migration about the FAA regulations that grounded their latest flight until last Monday, when the FAA waived the rules. Joe Duff and the cranes are still in Alabama. They tried to take off this past Saturday but postponed. They expected to try again soon.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: After the video surfaced last week of U.S. Marines desecrating corpses in Afghanistan, we asked Marines to tell us how does this happen. James Binn's(ph) email from Fayetteville, Arkansas: The outrage over these Marines is an overreaction. In the history of warfare, this act is small potatoes, albeit bad P.R. After the Battle of the Bulge, when the U.S. was pushing the Germans back, American soldiers sat on the dead bodies of Germans when the stopped for a break instead of sitting on the snow. Young men in a group will sometimes act foolishly. In perspective, too much is being made of this act.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Attif(ph) emailed with a very different perspective from Afghanistan: I live in Kabul. I briefly lived in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Marines urinating allegedly Taliban corpses is utterly un-American. It is extremely jeopardizing to U.S. personnel, both Army and civilians alike, and it will stir resentment against the U.S. as a whole. The Taliban issued a statement in which they say the crusaders and occupying forces have been coming with this kind of barbaric thing from the time they occupied our country. The Taliban are calling upon people to rise against the U.S. and its allies. I personally think it is extremely bad. We have tremendous respect for dead people here. It's considered a despicable act to desecrate a dead human being. The U.S. should investigate this seriously. I wish it did not happen.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And finally, after our show on the role of independent voters, Ray Peterson(ph) in Colorado emailed to complain: No one can be registered to vote as an independent. This terminology is used over and over again, and it's wrong. You register as a D or an R or a Socialist worker or a Green and so on. But if one chooses to not register with one of the parties, he or she registers unaffiliated. There's no such thing as registered independent.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you have a correction, comment or question for us, the best way to reach us is by email. The address is talk@npr.org. Please, let us know where you're writing from and give us some help on how to pronounce your name. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow us there, @totn. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropped out of the Republican presidential race Thursday, saying he saw no way forward. The same day, the Iowa Republican party announced that Mitt Romney is no longer the winner of the caucuses there. Don Gonyea, national political correspondent, NPR

JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It's two days before the GOP primary in South Carolina, and already the numbers in the race have shifted again. Texas Governor Rick Perry dropped out this morning. While in Iowa, the Republican Party announced that Mitt Romney cannot claim after all that he won the caucuses there; Rick Santorum leads at last count. But the truth is we may never know who won in Iowa. NPR political correspondent Don Gonyea is on the road in South Carolina and joins us now by phone. And, Don, where precisely are you right now?</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: I'm somewhere in Columbia, in the downtown area. I started out this morning in Greenville, where I attended an anti-abortion forum last night that four of the candidates joined in on - among them, Rick Perry. Mitt Romney was not there. I'm on my way to Charleston, where the debate is this evening.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So seeing Rick Perry last night in person, did you have a sense that this was coming, his dropping out was coming?</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: We had heard rumblings, oh, about the last 24, 36 hours now or so that one option that was on the table was dropping out ahead of the Saturday vote. All polling indicated that he was going to come in the single digits, perhaps low single digits, kind of an embarrassing way to go out for a guy who was once a frontrunner. So we were hearing that it made some sense for him to drop out and endorse and maybe have just a little bit of juice...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: No.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: ...a little bit of an effect.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So you mean he wanted to spare himself the indignity of a bad finish?</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Yeah. And actually determine kind of the terms of his exit and to have everybody care about what he says as he leaves, and that's what endorsing Newt Gingrich does for him. I'll tell you last night he seemed very relaxed, more relaxed, I think, than I've ever seen him. In retrospect, you know, I've learned that he had made up his mind by then, so that would explain why he was so casual and relaxed.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: But that - we didn't really sense it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: The pressure was off. And what does it do for Gingrich, his endorsement?</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Well, you know, what it does it's not like Rick Perry had a lot of votes to give to Gingrich. If he's polling at, you know, 4 or 5 percent, first, you can't say all of them are going to go to Gingrich, but let's say, you know, a lot of them do, it might give Gingrich a bump of a point or two or maybe a little bit more. But what it does for him is it helps to create a sense of Gingrich being the guy who's consolidating support, especially in this state, to emerge and the challenger to Mitt Romney.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Let's turn for a moment to Iowa.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Rick Santorum would also like to make that claim, but Gingrich seems to be doing that in South Carolina.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: OK. Because you mentioned Santorum, I wanted to skip back to Iowa with the primary more than two weeks ago, but now, we find out that it was not Romney's win. That it was actually Santorum's, although we may never really know who won because they're - it's being called a statistical tie. But what happened there?</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Right. When the votes were counted caucus night - and I think it was three in the morning before we knew the result - there were eight votes separating Romney in first place, Santorum in second place. It was called essentially a tie, but Romney was declared the winner, and he's been going to New Hampshire and South Carolina since saying I'm the first guy in Republican history to win those two. And he kind of used it to create this aura of inevitability about himself.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: So now, we find out Santorum won because when they did a re-canvas, which is part of the normal process - it's not a recount. It's just that there's always a two-week period before they certify the vote. Everybody knew that there was a potential for some votes to (technical difficulty) for the tally to come in (technical difficulty) sure enough, Santorum 34 points. But the reason it's - 34 votes ahead - the reason is still in doubt is because, remember, these are paper ballots...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah. It's the old-fashioned way. Don, I have to cut you off to go to a break, but I want to thank NPR's Don Gonyea traveling in South Carolina. Thanks for joining us.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: All right. Thank you.

Crime novelist Elmore Leonard (left) with Justified star Timothy Olyphant. Elmore Leonard has had the kind of writing career many aspiring writers dream of. Over the course of six decades, he's written scores of successful crime novels, short stories and scripts for screens big and small. Justified, the acclaimed TV series on FX, is based on one of Leonard's short stories, "Fire in the Hole." The show has garnered awards for its gritty yet likeable characters. Leonard, 86, is the show's executive producer. He talks with NPR's John Donvan about how he crafts his characters for the page and screen and his 2012 novel, Raylan.

JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Elmore Leonard has had the kind of writing career that writers dream of when they first start out. He writes crime, and he has turned a lifetime of novels, short stories and movie scripts that sold and got read and seen and that built a following - six decades worth of that, time enough for him to figure out what works on the page, which often turns out to be what works quite well on the screen, as well. The acclaimed TV series on FX, "Justified," is based on one of Leonard's short stories "Fire in the Hole." Seasons one and two captured attention and garnered awards for the show's gritty, yet likeable characters and their Kentucky drawl. Season three premiered this week.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: If you have followed Elmore Leonard's works in television or in crime novels, give us a call. Our number is 1-800-989(ph). Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can join our conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. And any writers out there who want to talk to a writer's writer, here is your chance. Elmore Leonard joins us now from studios of member station WDET in Detroit. Welcome to the show, Elmore Leonard.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Thank you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So you have this series now, you and a group of colleagues, fellow executive producers. It is based, as I said, on your story "Fire in the Hole." It's doing fabulously well, critically acclaimed. And it's - the interesting thing is your title on the credits is executive producer. So how - what happens when a writer becomes an executive producer?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Well, what happens to me is I feel I should take part in it. I feel I can't just sit along and watch the sequences and not do anything about it, that I should provide something, because I've - all my life, I've written for paychecks. So I'm doing the same thing now, although I don't get involved with the day-to-day work of the writing team, because there are about seven or eight in there. I've never written with anyone else before. So I just write my own book, which I've done now with "Raylan." So "Raylan" runs for a book length.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: That's your new book.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: And in it - the new book that's coming out today or tomorrow. And it's - and in it are sequences that they can use or not use. But I don't want to know what they're doing, and so I don't want to interfere with their work. So that - I write these about Raylan and about the kind of characters that he is confronted with, and I'm happy about it. And they get to use what they want. But I can't - I just cannot see myself sitting and not working if I'm getting paid.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Our number is - what great work ethic. Our number is 1-800-989-8255, and our email address is talk@npr.org. I'm quite interested, Elmore, in the matter of watching your - a story that you conceived of live and grow beyond the covers of the book that you wrote that might have inspired the film. You wrote the book for - that became the film "Get Shorty." You wrote "Rum Punch," which became Quentin Tarantino's "Jackie Brown." It's happened a number of times. Your books have inspired stories. And now with this hit show on the FX channel, "Justified," I find it fascinating that the pilot is based very much on your short story "Fire in the Hole," but it then lives on for years and years afterward.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So I'd like to just listen to - a little bit of a spoiler alert for those who haven't seen the pilot, but it was two seasons back - the closing scene in which two characters, your main character, Raylan Givens, who's your hero and the main character of your new book "Raylan." Raylan Givens is in a shootout with a Boyd Crowder. And I just need to explain it, because we all know the obvious. Raylan wins the shootout. Let's listen to that.</s>WALTER GOGGINS: (as Boyd Crowder) What are you packing?</s>TIMOTHY OLYPHANT: (as Raylan Givens) You'll pay to find that out.</s>WALTER GOGGINS: (as Boyd Crowder) Oh, you got ice cold water run through your veins. Well, should we just do us a shot of Jim Beam, just for old time's sake?</s>AARON: (as Boyd Crowder) Oh, you did it, huh? You really did. You did it.</s>TIMOTHY OLYPHANT: (as Raylan Givens) I'm sorry. You called it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, what happens there is Raylan and Boyd are still talking, and on television Boyd lives. In your short story, that same shootout happens and then Raylan is asked, is he dead? And you say - and Raylan answers, well, he is now. In the short story, he dies and so...</s>ELMORE LEONARD: In the first - and in the shooting he died. Then they said, wait a minute, this guy is so good, let's - we got to keep him alive because I was disappointed when Boyd Crowder died. I said, he's too good to lose, and they all felt the same way. So they worked a little different, re-shot the scene, I guess.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And I guess my basic question is, are you good with - are you OK with that to see this guy live?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: That's the best thing that's happened to this show...</s>ELMORE LEONARD: ...because Boyd's great. He's the perfect counterpart for Raylan.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We have a lot of your fans who are lined up on our phone lines waiting to talk with you. Let's bring in Aaron from Fort Dodge, Iowa. Aaron, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>AARON: Hello.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Hi there.</s>AARON: Yeah. No, I just wanted to say, first off, thanks to Elmore Leonard. I recently have gotten into the genre of Westerns. And in my attempt to get into the genre, I kind of dipped into short stories, and I ran across a couple of collections of his short stories, and I really gravitated to him. I kind of liked him quite a bit, and I just - I guess my question, just to get to the point then is could you tell us - could Mr. Leonard tell us about his early years writing those short stories, the kind of pulp fiction-y Western tales. And, you know, with that, you know, the days of living hand to mouth, and kind of learning to be a writer for, you know, literally to put food on the table and a roof over the head. Or was this, you know, what was that evolution as a writer like?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: How'd you do it?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Well, I decided to write Westerns because there was a terrific market for Westerns in the '50s. There were a lot of pulp magazines, like Dime Western and 10 Story Western that were still being published. The better ones paid two cents a word. And I thought I like Westerns. I didn't read them, but I loved Western movies, so I decided I'm going to get in on this. So I was working at an ad agency, but I'd get up in the morning at 5 o'clock and I'd write - it took me a couple of months to get up. But I would write for two hours and I would write two pages.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: At that time, I could write a page an hour - not anymore. But - so I would - at that time, during the '50s, I wrote 30 short stories and sold them and five books, and a couple were made in the movies. So I was on my way. But a lot of them, though, were just for two cents a word, and - but at least in the '50s, that was - that's $100. So at least it was worthwhile in the '50s.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Aaron, thanks for your call. I want to bring in Sirley(ph) from Cedarburg, Wisconsin. Sirley, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>SIRLEY: Oh, Elmore, you are my very favorite. And they suggested that I mention two particularly hilarious polluter sketches from your Florida series. The polluter who - two elderly couples staying in a motel, he leaves the motel gets eaten by an alligator, or - yeah, alligator. And the other one is the polluter who got a dump truck full of trash dumped into his convertible.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Yeah, I remember them.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You're punishing polluters.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: So I did - no, they - well, they weren't. I don't think they were called polluters in the story. No, but an - you got to put an alligator in the story if you're setting it in Florida. And this guy who was somebody - what was paid to get him out of the way, and they - I think what they did was just dump a lot of cement into his convertible, and he was still in it.</s>SIRLEY: And then the trek out into the wilderness with that renegade, I think he was one-eyed, lived in a hovel, and they called him the king, or the emperor, or the prince.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: I don't remember that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Sirley, thanks for your call. And you're inspiring me to go back to these Florida stories.</s>SIRLEY: (Unintelligible).</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks for your call. I want to talk to you, very briefly, about your famous 10 rules for writing. I'm not sure how far back those were published, but...</s>ELMORE LEONARD: 2000. Year of 2000.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: 2000. They've lived on forever. You have 10 very practical rules, literally for - I think, you intend them fully for people who want to write and who want to have success, and they are...</s>ELMORE LEONARD: I didn't do them very seriously, the one I gave them at a writer's conference. And that afternoon, I wrote the 10 rules and I recited them at the end of my talk. And then I came off the stage and someone is - and I was holding this sheet of paper with the 10 rules written in longhand. And someone came out to me and said, could I have those? I said, yeah and I gave them to him.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, they're taken very seriously and it may not be back.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Yeah. Probably I...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Never own a book with the weather.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Well, I was - at that time, I thought it was just sort of funny, you know? But now, I realize they should be taken seriously. At least I took them seriously so...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Never use the word suddenly, or all hell broke loose.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Ever.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What's wrong with suddenly?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Well, it's...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It should say itself.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: You...</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Use - I don't know why, but you see bad writers using suddenly. Perhaps that's was the reason.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Let's bring in somebody, I think, might be an aspiring writer, Charles in St. Augustine, Florida. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>CHARLES: Oh, thank you for taking my call. Mr. Leonard, I was wondering in your writing process, when you're writing something for the page or for the screen, what is the point that you usually begin from? And I'll take my answer off the air.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Hmm. I don't - I'm not sure what you mean. When I begin to write, how do I start?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, I think he was intending to ask, do you have the idea - do you have the ending in mind when you sit down with the beginning, or do you start from the beginning and figure it out from there?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: No, I have no idea where it's going to go. I don't want to know, because the idea is accumulated in the four months, five months, six months. Now, it's get - it takes me longer - of the writing process, you get more - you get better ideas while you're writing it, that ideas come to you, that scenes come to you that then if you were to sit down and begin to list scenes. So I don't - I started out that way years and years ago, but I only did about two books that I outlined.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: And now, I just started writing a book. I have characters in mind to open with. Now, I think that the first 100 pages you're introducing characters that are interested to you, the writer. See how they get along. See if there's - what the conflicts are. And then get them going in the second part - in the act two, and get the, you know, get some subplots going, and then get into a point where you have to finish and then think of the ending. And there are - normally there are other ways. There are more - there's more than one way to finish a book, more than one conclusion you can reach. And that's what - that's just the way you do it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: You come to an end and you end it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We are talking with Elmore Leonard. And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION. I want to bring in Juan from Fort Myers, Florida. Juan, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JUAN: Yes, thank you. I think you've answered some of my questions, but I have another one. The - in writing, it's important to keep a sequence, or a storyline, you call... And but also, I think is just as important or maybe more important, is how you develop your story and your phrases. What - is there anything that you can tell us about developing and, you know, as part of the art of writing as how you, say, think. And like I know that you notice that some of the words that you said not to use, they're old words and that, kind of, you know, they're not stimulating. So how would you stimulate? What do you use and what do you recommend to stimulate the writing?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And also, Elmore, I want to point out that your writing is widely recognized as very stripped down. I mean, it's very sparse and direct.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Yeah. Well, listen, you can use suddenly and all hell broke loose if someone says it. If someone is dumb enough to use those words in some way, fine, you know? It begins to identify the character. I just say, don't use it in your prose. What I do is always write from a character's point of view, and you begin - or normally, you begin with the main character's point of view, find out what is added to its are, and then maybe bring the woman in. But it's always from the character's point of view when - and then there - then they begin to talk with other characters. And it's the way they talk, the way the kind of person they are and the words they use, that you get to know the characters rather than the writer describing the person and say, well he talk - he spoke with - very undramatically.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And speaking of characters, Elmore, we have a question from an emailer who is asking, I think, the autobiographical question. He wants to know, do you smoke or drink as much as your characters do?</s>ELMORE LEONARD: No. Well, I quit drinking for 36, 37 years, but then I started drinking wine again about two years ago 'cause I'm getting old. I thought, let's - we got to liven things us a little bit, but the wine has not affected me at all. But smoke - I've been smoking for what - not 50. I've been smoking from - for 40 years. And I quit one time while I was writing. And the next 30 days, I wrote - I don't know – oh, 10 pages, something like that. Then I started smoking again, I wrote a hundred pages.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: So it's just, you know...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: That's not one for the children out there.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: No. It was part of my routine. It was part of my routine. I write in longhand. And when I get to a point where I don't know what comes next, I would stop and light a cigarette, and it just became part of the habit of writing.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, Elmore Leonard is a crime novelist and executive producer, one of the executive producers of "Justified," the FX series that is now in it's third season. He joined us from member station WDET in Detroit. Elmore Leonard, thank you so much for the time.</s>ELMORE LEONARD: Thank you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Tomorrow, it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. Ira Flatow will be here for a look at the world's second synthetic windpipe transplant and how that experimental procedure can save lives. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan in Washington.

Host Mac McGarry (top left) poses with student contestants on the set of It's Academic in 1988. For 51 seasons, the Washington, D.C.-based TV quiz show It's Academic has pitted three teams of high school students against each other in a sports game atmosphere — complete with chants and cheerleaders. The show first aired in the Washington area in 1961 and spurred similar programs in several other cities. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New York Senator Charles Schumer and political commentator George Stephanopoulos have all appeared as contestants on versions of the show. Quizmaster Mac McGarry has hosted the D.C. program for five decades. He stepped down in November 2011, and officially passes the baton to the show's new host in January. McGarry talks with NPR's John Donvan about the show's evolution.

Arguably the world today is a safer place than it used to be for one category of American: the academically-motivated teenager. Thanks to brainy superstars like Mark Zuckerberg and, before him, Bill Gates, it's probably cooler now than it's ever been to be smart, to know stuff. Before them, you were taking something of a risk to be a teen who seemed to be too smart, but there was always one safe place: a TV show called "It's Academic," which started in Washington, D.C., and then was reproduced in several American cities, a show that starred smart American high school students competing against each other to show just how smart they were.</s>Arguably the world today is a safer place than it used to be for one category of American: The questions were difficult. The time before the buzzer was short. And the honor of winning was large and enduring. Mac McGarry hosted the very first episode when the show launched. And having asked over the decades thousands of questions and knowing the answers in advance, just imagine what he knows now and the stories he can tell. But we want to hear your stories, too. Were you one of the thousands who made the cut and had a seat on "It's Academic" or one of other many high school quiz shows around the country? Call us and we want to know what was the answer that stumped you or how did you win.</s>Arguably the world today is a safer place than it used to be for one category of American: Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website, go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. But first, let's turn to the quizmaster himself. Mac McGarry joins us now from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Welcome to the program, Mac. How are you?</s>MAC MCGARRY: Thank you very much, John. And what a special pleasure to meet a fellow alumnus of one of America's greatest high schools, Regis, on East 84th Street in Manhattan.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It...</s>MAC MCGARRY: I'm only a few decades ahead of you, John...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It's...</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...but it's still a pleasure.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: It's true. We both attended Regis High School. And where I had the advantage was that in my time there was a show called "It's Academic," and I remember going to the taping, to the New York version when Regis competed. And I was a freshman, so I wasn't eligible for the team but our - we put some seniors on the team. Tragically, they did not win for me that day, but it was a great memory.</s>MAC MCGARRY: I can't believe that, John. C'est impossible.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So...</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...that Regis didn't win. Yes, I remember when New York started its version of the show, about two years after Washington. The host was the late Art James. He came down to see how it was done in Washington and brought it all back to New York. And we've been all over the country - New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Boston, Cleveland...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Wow.</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...Pittsburgh. Now, we're still in Baltimore and Cleveland, at least last time I looked.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Mac, what do you think made the show so enduring?</s>MAC MCGARRY: One of the things, John, is the combination of the acclaim that sports stars get with the kind of attention that serious scholars should get, but what I mean by this is that after about two years of the show, it just sort of stood there flat. And then, Susan Altman, one of the producers, said let's bring in the cheerleaders and the bands. And as soon as we did that, it really started to take off. It was a tribute to the scholarship of the young contestants that it had all the trappings of a football game. And so I think that was very important in our gradual growth over the years.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So it was not you would say a televisually exciting show in the beginning?</s>MAC MCGARRY: Not in the beginning I don't think. People could have accused us of being geeks or nerds just sort of sitting there...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: No. No.</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...and responding as best we could.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: No.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Adding the band and the cheerleaders, let's hear it, boys. Let's go.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: There are some lovely little facts about the show, including the fact that one of the cheerleaders at one of the shows way back when - we won't say how far back - was one Sandra Bullock, came with her high school team and was a cheerleader in the studio.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Yes, that's true. She was - I don't remember her especially, but I can give you the year. It was the early '80s. I'm sure she wouldn't mind. But I always take great pleasure in seeing her movies and thinking, oh, there's one of my proteges...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Right. Right.</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...from "It's Academic," Sandra Bullock.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Let's bring in Denver - let's bring in Bryan(ph) from Denver, Who - Bryan, were you a contestant on "It's Academic"?</s>BRYAN: Yes, I was. Hi, Mac. It's an honor to speak to you again. It's been about 12 years since I appeared on the show. And I know my younger brothers and I were all on the "It's Academic" team at Hayfield Secondary School in Fairfax County. And it was a lot of fun even though every year until probably my youngest brother's year, we always lost. We got killed on the show. We weren't pressing the buzzer, but...</s>MAC MCGARRY: What do you do now, Bryan? What do you do now?</s>BRYAN: I'm finishing up my master's degree in engineering. And right after high school, I went to the University of Virginia and joined the Peace Corps and - but all throughout the whole time I always kept up with trivia stuff, playing Trivial Pursuit and all that with my friends. And I think...</s>MAC MCGARRY: Sophie Altman - pardon me, Bryan. Sophie Altman, the founder of the show always said this, facts are not trivia...</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...so facts. That's good for you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks, Bryan, very much for your call. I'd be very interested to hear from somebody who won because I haven't met anybody yet who was actually a winner, and I know they existed. Today, I exchanged emails with my colleague George Stephanopoulos over at ABC, who was a contestant, I believe, in the New York version. And he said it was one of the greatest memories of his life.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Actually, he was in...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Where was he?</s>MAC MCGARRY: He was in Cleveland.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I'm sorry. And he said it was one of the greatest memories of his life, except for the fact that he didn't win, which was frustrating. Yeah. I want to bring in Hillary(ph) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Hi, Hillary. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>HILLARY: Hi. Hi. It's so great to hear Mac McGarry's voice after all these years. I was captain of Magruder High School's "It's Academic" team from 1984 and 1985, and we did win. We won in the first round, which was very exciting.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Aha. OK.</s>HILLARY: But we lost in the second round to, like, Georgetown Prep in Sidwell Friends or something like that. We were just a country bumpkin school. So getting passed the first round was a really big deal for us.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hillary, what were the questions.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Magruder...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Do you remember your - the questions that stumped you in the end?</s>HILLARY: The question that stumped me was - it was an art question and the answer was a la mode. And he said it was a three-word answer, but I heard three letters, so I said a la and I stopped, and my teammates said mode.</s>HILLARY: So I got it out and we did get the question right, but it was a funny moment. And my brother - I can still remember my brother staring at me from the bleachers, and it was just such a great experience. And I took the "Jeopardy!" online test the other night to be a contestant, and I thought of Mac and I thought of that experience and thought, if I could do "It's Academic," I can do "Jeopardy!"</s>MAC MCGARRY: Well, certainly you can.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hillary, was it - were you cool, by virtue of being in "It's Academic"?</s>HILLARY: No, never. No.</s>HILLARY: I mean, we certainly got attention, but we were still considered the geeks, totally, but it was OK.</s>MAC MCGARRY: That breaks my heart.</s>HILLARY: We were told...</s>MAC MCGARRY: I think that time - I'm just going to say that I think that has changed because now some of the kids get jerseys with their initials on it and there are the T-shirts.</s>HILLARY: Yeah.</s>MAC MCGARRY: It has changed since the early - they're heroes.</s>HILLARY: Well, that's good.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks very much for your call, Hillary. What's interesting also, again, among the people who were involved with this show as students - Hillary Clinton, I believe, was an alternate at one time.</s>MAC MCGARRY: She was.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Cokie Roberts worked on the show. I think it was her first job in television. She worked on the production staff, NPR's Cokie Roberts. And NPR's Sarah Handel from Annapolis, Maryland, who is the director of this show and is sitting on the other side of the glass from me. Would you say it's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people at this point, Mac, who went through your studio?</s>MAC MCGARRY: Who have been through the - who have been through the studio?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah.</s>MAC MCGARRY: It would be thousands now.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Wow.</s>MAC MCGARRY: 50 years. Can you imagine that? People keep telling me, you did the show for 50 years. I said, I don't believe it. I just got started. 1961, John F. Kennedy was president. And I can tell you that this theory of Camelot was true. All the young people in Washington thought it was great to have a young president, his beautiful, young wife and there was a great atmosphere in Washington in the years when we first started.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Did that interact with what was happening on the show?</s>MAC MCGARRY: I think - what I remember about the early days of the show was how well-dressed each of the students was. The girls would have necklaces on and nice dresses. The guys always would have shirts - shirts, I hope - coat and tie on.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I knew what you meant.</s>MAC MCGARRY: And as we went through the Vietnam era, there was a restlessness that was palpable in the audience. The unruly sections of the audience would takeover for a little while, then they'd stop. And now, even though we've been through these – and are still in some terrible wars - things fairly calm on "It's Academic"...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Interesting.</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...among the contestants.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Sociology of their own...</s>MAC MCGARRY: They zeroed in on winning the game.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Nancy(ph) in Monroe, Wisconsin, welcome. You're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NANCY: Hi. How are you?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Good. Good.</s>NANCY: Good. My experience was with the St. Louis version of this called "Scholar Quiz" and it would have been either in the fall of '70 or the winter of - or the spring of '71.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Mm-hmm.</s>NANCY: But the question - I was the captain of our team and we were leading throughout the entire show, but we couldn't see the score. And I thought we were trailing, and so I kind of desperately answered the last - we could see the timer. I desperately answered the last question, which was, how many teaspoons in a tablespoon? And I blew it and we lost.</s>NANCY: But if I just kept my mouth shut - a lesson I still haven't really learned - if I had just kept my mouth shut, we would have won.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What's the answer?</s>NANCY: Three. What did I say? I said two.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yup. I would have made exactly the same mistake.</s>NANCY: Yup.</s>MAC MCGARRY: I would've made the same mistake, yeah.</s>NANCY: I later learned that in England, two teaspoons is in a tablespoon, but I'm not sure that's correct.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Thanks. Heartbreaking, Nancy. Your story is heartbreaking.</s>NANCY: Heartbreaking.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks very much for your call. Steve in Fayetteville, Arkansas, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>STEVE: Yes. When I was in high school, I was on Scholars Bowl in the Quad Cities of Illinois-Iowa. And the - it has been a great career training for me because since that time, I was a winner both on "Jeopardy!" and "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Wow. The - I don't - I think that's got to be a first.</s>MAC MCGARRY: It's...</s>STEVE: And - well, both of my brothers were also on their Scholars Bowl team and also have appeared on "Jeopardy!"</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Amazing.</s>MAC MCGARRY: We're "Jeopardy!'s" prep show, I think, because...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Yeah.</s>MAC MCGARRY: ...right now, the reigning team champion is an alumnus of our program. We've had money winners on the show. And I, myself, I've met Alex Trebek. I was his understudy for years on the national geography bee here. So he's a sensationally good host, and I enjoy "Jeopardy!" every night.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Steve, thanks very much for your call.</s>STEVE: Thank you.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION on NPR. And we're talking with Matt(ph) McGarry about - Mac McGarry about his experiences of 50-plus - just over 50 years of being the host, the original host and the longtime host of "It's Academic," the show that gave places - a safe place for kids to be smart and to make it cool, even if some of the callers have told us that it still wasn't cool to be on the show. I want to bring in Howard in Phoenix, Arizona. Howard, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>HOWARD: Good afternoon. I thank you so much. This is so many held memories that have too long been suppressed. I was on "It's Academic" in New York City, when Art James was the host back in 1966. He later became, I think, a host of many national game shows. But back then, he was in New York City. And what (unintelligible)...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What high school where you with?</s>HOWARD: It was Thomas Jefferson High School in Brownsville East New York. Ooh, that's now closed, kind of Mike Tyson's old neighborhood, not a very savory neighborhood even back in the '60s. But what I remember, two vivid memories - one is of my teammates, one who became a physicist and another who became a neurosurgeon. And the other thing was I came from a high school with many, many accomplished athletes, several of whom became really important pro athletes, and yet in our yearbook, the centerfolds, if you will, of our yearbook contained a picture of these three nerdy guys on "It's Academic," including me. It was a thrill.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: That is a thrill. That's even thrilling to hear. Congratulations to you.</s>HOWARD: Thank you so much.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I just hope you didn't get beaten up on the way home from school the way that those...</s>HOWARD: I got beaten up almost every day at school.</s>MAC MCGARRY: That's the best thing I've heard in quite a while: centerfold for "Its Academic" stars.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You showed them, Howard. All right. Thanks very much for your call. I want to bring in Brian(ph) in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.</s>BRIAN: Hello.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi, Brian. I mispronounced the name of your town, if you can correct me.</s>BRIAN: Oh, Murfreesboro.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I got it right.</s>BRIAN: OK. That's right.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Great. What's your story?</s>BRIAN: I was on a similar show in Atlanta, growing up in high school in the early '90s. And we were also on another show in Macon, Georgia, our team. And we came then as runner's up on the Atlanta show, which is called "High Q" out of WSB in Atlanta and then - and we actually won the show, won the season on the show in Macon, so...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: What was your high school?</s>BRIAN: It was a lot of - it was Griffin High School in Griffin, Georgia.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And do you remember the questions that really got you?</s>BRIAN: We had four people on our team, and everybody kind of had a specialty that - it was almost like we would defer to each member if one of the subject areas came up. One area that I almost never pursued, but just because of the time constraints and that my brain works slowly sometimes, was any kind of math question or something that would require calculation. I would just look to one of my other teammates because I could trust them to get it, and then I would handle any of the other subjects, but general knowledge kinds of things and sports especially seemed to be my specialty.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Brian, thanks so much for your call. Mac, we're coming up to the end of the session here. And I just - I know that you're stepping down now after more than 50 years. What are you going to miss most?</s>MAC MCGARRY: Grand delusion as I call it, John. Because every time I would look up and see the panel of students, they were always 17 years old. I would be deluded into thinking that I'm not getting any older at all. My kids are always the same age, and here I am 85. Wow.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Wow.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Coast to coast I admit it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, congratulations.</s>MAC MCGARRY: I'll miss that.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Congratulations on 50 years, and it sounds like you made a lot of friends who are never going to forget two things: the question they missed on and you. Thanks so much, Mac McGarry for joining us.</s>MAC MCGARRY: Thank you, John.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Quizmaster Mac McGarry joined us from his home in Potomac, Maryland. And he will be appearing on the show this weekend to officially pass the baton to new D.C. host Hillary Howard and have a good show this weekend. Tomorrow, it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY, and Ira Flatow will be here for a look at mindfulness meditation, a way to switch off the brain's autopilot mode. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan in Washington.

GOP candidates have attacked Mitt Romney as a "vulture capitalist" who destroyed jobs. The charges center on his 15 years at the private equity firm Bain Capital. But what are private equity firms, and what do they do? Marilyn Geewax, senior business editor, NPR Steven Davis, professor, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Eileen Appelbaum, senior economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research

JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm John Donvan in Washington. Neal Conan is away. Not all capitalists are Republicans, but all Republicans are capitalists, as a rule, anyway, straightforward enough. But then came the current race for the White House, Republican versus Republican, and now we're hearing there are all different kinds of capitalists. Not unsuccessful/successful, but good guy/bad guy, with fellow Republicans attacking frontrunner Mitt Romney, who made his money as a venture capitalist by calling him a vulture capitalist, a job destroyer, a crony capitalist.</s>NEWT GINGRICH: But if somebody who is very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that's not a model we want to advocate.</s>SARAH PALIN: Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, and, you know, people are wanting to know: Is there proof of that claim?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Newt Gingrich on Fox News and Sarah Palin speaking on "Hannity." The charges center on his work at Bain Capital, the firm he co-founded before he went into politics. In a moment, NPR senior business editor Marilyn Geewax will join us to tell us what this all means and to explain how venture capital firms actually work.</s>But first we want to ask you: If a private firm took over your company using borrowed money, in the end was your company better off, or was it worse off? Tell us your story. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can also join the conversation, also at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>But first we want to ask you: Later on in the program, Mac McGarry, longtime host of "It's Academic," will join us. But first Marilyn Geewax, and her piece called "So, Um, What is a Private Equity Firm" was posted today at npr.org. Welcome back, Marilyn.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Hi.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Hi, and in all of these terms that we're hearing thrown about in the Republican debates by - especially by the now-departed Rick Perry, walk us through it. What is private equity? What is venture capital? And what do they mean by vulture capital?</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, let's just take a minute to stop and think about the very big picture here. What we're talking about is there are people and institutions - institutions are things like pension funds and university endowments - these wealthy people and institutions need to invest their money. They're not going to just stuff it in a mattress or take it to the bank where they get very little interest. They need to grow their money.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: They can grow it in two different ways. They could go to a public forum like the New York Stock Exchange and buy publicly traded stocks, or they can do it in a private way. And that's where these private equity firms come in, that's what Bain Capital was. It takes a bunch of money, puts it all together and then invests it in companies to hope that they will grow. And they're looking for quick growth.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: I was going to ask, for them, the advantage of going private rather than going public is what?</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, there are better opportunities sometimes. You know, not every company trades on the New York Stock Exchange. You look around America, I'm sure in any community you'll find middle-market companies that are not really huge, but they're not small. They're good, ongoing companies. And to be able to invest in those, you need to go through these private markets.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And these private equity firms help our - they're kind of matchmakers. They put together the people with the pools of money and the companies that want to get access to that equity. So there are different strategies that these private equity firms can use.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: One strategy can be called venture capital, and that is they're capitalists. Capital means money. And they look for a good venture, and they put their capital into that venture, and it grows. Now, a great example of that would be Google. Back in the '90s, there were a couple of really smart guys, they had a great idea, kind of in the dorm room, but they didn't have money.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: So in 1999, some very wise venture capital firms gave them money to help them grow. By 2004, Google was a publicly traded company, and today they have tens of thousands of workers.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And nobody's complaining about that.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Right, that's a popular way of investing private equity, to do a venture that grows very rapidly, and pretty much everybody likes that sort of thing. But then there are other ways that the complaints are that it goes too far. And there's sort of this generic term that's being kicked around now, vulture capitalism, that it's that - that there are these other strategies that are harmful to workers.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And in this idea, you go into a company, and you either charge fees that are far too high, you bid on the company in an auction, maybe you do various things that drive down the price, and you try to get it as cheaply as possible. And then you invest in it, but you invest in it with a lot of borrowed dollars, and you load the company up with too much debt, you charge too high of fees, and the next thing you know, a lot of workers end up being laid off.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Now, the private equity fund managers may still make a very good amount of money because they'll get fees, and maybe they'll make a profit. But a lot of times the workers really suffer, or at least they - certainly they lose their jobs, and they feel bad about that. So there is this question of, is there - are there forms of capitalism that are just too rough, that result in too big of profits for some people and too much suffering for others?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: As the controversy in the Republican discussion seems to be about what - you're talking about this second kind, where companies come in and are perceived as having caused harm - the role of debt, you mentioned that. In other words, the outside buyers borrow a lot of money, buy the company, and then the debt that is owed becomes owed by the company that they bought.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And that is - you know, let's think about it in terms of maybe if you buy your own home with a mortgage, if you go into a situation where you're buying a house, and you borrow a lot of money to do that, you know, maybe that ends up being a great investment for you over time, and you may profit from it, but when you first take on all of that debt, you might have to do all sorts of things to save money, to cut your costs.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: You might have to, you know, stop going out to restaurants. You maybe can't take vacations. You have to do all sorts of things to cut your costs to be able to manage that new debt that you've just taken on. And that's what happens at a lot of these companies: They get a lot of debt, and they have to do something to live within the means, given this new debt, and often that means a lot of people get laid off.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, what if there's a company that is perhaps not the world's most profitable company, sitting - I'll work with some bland stereotypes. Pick a Midwestern company, a small manufacturing firm, by smallish I mean maybe it employs 400 workers, it makes a single product, it's owned by a family, and it's cooking along, and it's not actually squeezing every last penny out of the operation that it could. And yet it's employed families for several generations, it supports the local baseball team, it's a good civic citizen, and the owning family really isn't that hungry to squeeze more profit out of it.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Why - what's the argument for not just leaving that alone as opposed to having an outside investor coming in and seeing the opportunity to squeeze more profit, which would result in the layoffs?</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: In a lot of cases, there may be a family-owned business that's exactly as you describe. There are actually lots and lots of businesses like that. But maybe the family, the founder of it is ready to retire, he'd like to take his profits and move on. And the company hasn't been quite as profitable as it should have - it could be under other ownership.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: That owner may put their company up for auction, and somebody will come in and buy it and say OK, we're here to clean up now. And they will do things like no more sponsorship of the Little League, and, you know...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Because they don't have the connection, they're maybe from thousands of miles away.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Right, just they're there to make a profit. And the argument is that's what capitalism is, that you come in, and your goal is to make a profit, not to support the Little League team. Your goal is not to have nice, cozy office furniture. It's not to keep the same person employed after 30 years, even if their skills are rusty. You job is to make money for your investors. So that's the way you have to - you know, that a capitalist would look at it.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And the argument is if you don't do that with that business, sooner or later, the customers are going to get fed up with it, it won't be very...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Because?</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, they may say that the costs are too high. There's competition...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: The cost of the product, you mean?</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: The price of the product that they make is too high, there's a competitor somewhere in China who can make it more cheaply. So eventually that business is going to go out anyway because they're no longer competitive. So the private equity firm could come in with an infusion of new money and cut to the bone and make it much more profitable.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: But it's a - it can be a very painful and brutal process for the people who are at that company. And then they big question really is: Are the profits outsized? Does the private equity firm get too much? Now, at Bain, the example there was during his time at Bain, it's been estimated that he had a pool of capital that was collected up of $1.1 billion, and because of deals that he helped put together, Bain profited - it had gains of $2.5 billion.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Now, one might say that, well, what if their profits were just a little bit less? Would you have to have laid off that many people? And that's really where the argument is, is do you absolutely maximize profits?</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: We've asked listeners to call in with their stories of going through some of these experiences, and I want to go to Deborah(ph) in Sacramento. Deborah, you're on TALK OF THE NATION. So what happened in your case?</s>DEBORAH: In our situation, it was 1987, and our company was a family-owned company out of Salt Lake that was a Western trucking company. It's been a profitable business for 80 years. And we were purchased by some venture capitalists as the founder of our company became old and, as you say, could no longer manage the company anymore.</s>DEBORAH: And they bought the company, they took us on the tarmac in the seven Western states and said be assured, send your kids to college, we're here to stay, nothing's going to change. And within a very short period of time, we were closed.</s>DEBORAH: The company was asset-rich, they sold off all of our assets, our real estate in Las Angeles, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Oregon.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Why do you think, Deborah, they told you don't worry, and then it turned out you had to worry? Do you think they changed their minds, or do you think they were misleading you in the first place?</s>DEBORAH: They misled us. After 10 years of litigation and growing very old over the subject, I had hoped that these kind of shenanigans would have ended. But no, there was a design and a method in place to leverage us out, take the asset, gut the company, sell everything off, and then a very small handful of people became very wealthy.</s>DEBORAH: And it leaves in its path a wake of destruction that is extremely harmful for society as a whole. It's not a matter of being good business. That's bad business.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Marilyn?</s>DEBORAH: Entities collapse under this kind of pressure of not having people shopping at the supermarkets, not being able to make their car payments, not being able to pay your mortgage.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, I want to give Marilyn a chance to respond to that, and we're going to have some other guests, but we're going to take a break just before we do that. We're talking about venture capital firms. In the latest political back-and-forth, some of them are calling them job-killers, others job creators. NPR senior business editor Marilyn Geewax is helping us to navigate these complicated waters.</s>So if a private firm took over your company using borrowed money, tell us again: Was your company better off or worse off as we just heard? Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. I'm John Donvan. This is TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm John Donvan. There are more than 2,000 private equity firms headquartered in the U.S. backing more than 14,000 companies, and that's a lot of cash, and it's also a lot of jobs. But most of us rarely hear about venture capital, except in this political season, the term is being hurled at Mitt Romney by his opponents as an insult.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: He co-founded Bain Capital before he went into politics, and Rick Perry took to calling him a vulture capitalist. Today we're talking about venture capital firms actually do and how they do it and why at this particular moment they've become controversial.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: If a private firm took over your company using borrowed money, we want to know: Was your company better off or worse? Tell us your story. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Marilyn Geewax is our guest. She's a senior business editor at NPR. We've posted a link to her latest piece, which explains venture capitalism, at npr.org.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And now we want to turn to two people with very different views of the industry. Joining us now via Skype from his office in Chicago is Steven Davis, he's a professor of international business and economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Welcome to the program, Steven.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Thank you. Thanks for having me.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Thanks for joining us. And also joining us in Studio 3A is Eileen Appelbaum. She is a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy Research. Nice to have you with us, as well, Eileen.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: Glad to be here.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: And Eileen, you heard what we just heard from the caller a few minutes ago, telling the story of her experience with a venture capital firm being disastrous for the business she had worked with and for, for years. Is that the norm, or is that the unusual bad apple case.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: So first let me just help make a distinction between venture capital and private equity. Venture capital invests in early stage companies like Google and takes an equity stake. They don't load these companies up with debt because what would you use as an asset on these newly forming companies?</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: So it's a very different model than the private equity model. The private equity model deals with more mature firms. It purchases them by putting up a little bit of equity and borrowing a lot of debt. And the important point, Marilyn made the point about buying a house and having a mortgage.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: When you buy a house, and you have a mortgage, you are responsible for paying the mortgage. When a private equity firm buys a business, it is the business that puts up a little bit of equity and finances the rest, just like a mortgage, but it is not the private equity firm that has to pay that mortgage. It is the company that they've acquired.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: So if Private Equity Firm A buys Company B with debt, Private Equity Firm A is never liable for that debt? It's only the first it has bought?</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: That is correct, and so the most the private equity can lose is its initial down payment. So I just wanted to clarify that point. And in terms of the caller, there's two issues here. One is the initial founder of that company founded that company to last for as anybody could see. It lasted many decades under that person's leadership.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: And what we know from our research, I come to this not out of finance but as a person who has studied organizations and what goes on inside of them, the kinds of policies and practices that make organizations profitable and sustainable, what we know is that you have to have a certain level of trust.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: You have to have relationships with all kinds of stakeholders, and your long-term viability depends on those relationships with the community, with your workers, with your suppliers, with your vendors and so on. Private equity comes in, and the Sacramento case that we just heard seemed to go under pretty quickly.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: Typically they hold a company for six years, on average that's what they hold a company for, and they need to be profitable in that timeframe. The example that she gave - so it's not a generalizable(ph) example, but when private equity comes into a firm that has assets, such as retail, for example, or nursing homes or the case that we heard, typically they divide that company into two companies: a property company and an operating company.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: And all of the valuable assets go into the property company. They can sell that property company, make back their initial investment, maybe even make a profit on it, pay off the debt, and private equity has no more skin in the game. So whether the operating company succeeds or not, whether that trucking company succeeds or not...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, I want to bring in Steven Davis in the conversation, but just before we do that, I want to bring in one more caller who's going to share his story. I want to ask Matt(ph) in Cincinnati to join us. Matt, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>MATT: Thanks. Yes, I worked as a financial - for a health care company, a home health care company in Arizona, and prior to being taken over by a private equity company, it was very undisciplined, we really weren't very profitable, mainly because there wasn't a lot of discipline in the employees.</s>MATT: And about three months after the company took us over, there was a lot of discipline, and we became very profitable within two years. We grew three times our revenue, and five years later, we were sold. And I credit the private equity group a lot with bringing that level of discipline to us because prior to that, the founder made about $60,000 a year or whatever, a salary, but there wasn't a lot of emphasis on growth or making more money.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Is it your sense, Matt, that the company would have gone under sooner rather than later if the outside company hadn't come in?</s>MATT: Yeah, because there were a lot of competitors coming in and taking away the nurses, the good nurses, and leaving us with all the bad employees and such.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, let me bring in Steven Davis, who's a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and many other credentials. Steven, you know, respond to the story Matt's sharing with us from Cincinnati.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Well, it's interesting. You know, we've heard two stories now, both fairly vivid, and one paints a negative picture of private equity, and one paints a positive picture. And in fact much of what we think we know about private equity is based on stories and anecdotes like this, and there's a shortage of systematic study of a scientific sort that looks at outcomes in the wake of private equity buyouts and compares them to firms that are otherwise similar in an effort to draw some type of inference about what the net effect of the private equity transactions are overall.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: And that's how I approach this topic, and that's how my co-authors and I approached our study. So we wanted to get beyond anecdotes and stories and try to characterize, in a systematic way, what seems to happen broadly on average, in the big picture.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, let me ask Eileen Appelbaum: Do you agree with Steven on what the big picture is?</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: Well, let's have him tell us what he thinks it is, and then we'll see.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right, Steven, what is your big picture?</s>STEVEN DAVIS: So our study looks at most of the private equity buyout transactions that occurred from 1980 to 2005, and we found that the firms acquired by private equity did involve the loss of more jobs at a faster pace than firms that are otherwise similar in terms of industry, size, age and prior growth but that they also created more new jobs at a faster pace than these otherwise similar firms.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: So there was both more destruction of old jobs and more creation of new jobs at - in the aftermath of these private equity transactions. The net effect on employment was actually fairly modest. Depending on exactly how you measure it, one to percent of initial employment over two years.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Went down.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Yes, went down, yes. So that would be kind of the first headline from our study.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Eileen?</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: Well, I do have a problem with that. I've looked at Steve's work very carefully, and I agree that it is probably the best that we have. It's a really large-scale, careful study. But my problem with his conclusion is that he is looking, not just at jobs created at the companies that are taken over or other jobs destroyed at the companies taken over relative to others, at branches or stores or factories that were closed and at (unintelligible) plants that were opened.</s>EILEEN APPELBAUM: If you look only at those, you find a much larger loss of jobs than the headline figure he just gave you. The way he gets that headline figure is he also includes acquisitions. So when private equity takes over some of these smaller companies, it grows them by acquiring other companies. Now, when they acquire those other companies, they acquire their employees. There's no net job creation.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Eileen, I hear what your point is, and I want to let Steven respond quick.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Yeah, I don't think that's quite right. I gave the one- to two-percent range earlier, and the one-percent figure comes about, as Eileen suggested, when you take into account both acquisitions and divestitures. The two-percent figure comes in - is what we call organic job change. In other words, excluding the acquisitions and divestitures.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: So she's right that it does make a difference, we highlight this fact in the study, in fact one of the main advances of our study over previous work is we're able to actually draw that distinction. And I agree with Eileen that it's an important distinction to draw.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: But the difference between the two headline numbers, with and without acquisitions and divestitures, is not all that large, especially when you think about this over a two-year period.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Let's return, however, to the land of the anecdote and bring in Sherry(ph) in Richmond, Virginia. Sherry, you're on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>SHERRY: Yes.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: You're on the air. Go ahead, please.</s>SHERRY: Yes. I was - my company was a victim of vulture capitalism in 1985, Carl Icahn, the corporate raider, the movie "Wall Street" was made about him, greenmailed my company. I - most of us flight attendants were out of work for two and a half to three and a half years. We came back at a reduced salary. He sold off our London routes, and he used this to begin his career in investing by using our pension funds of which I never - we never recovered them. He used 75 percent of the flight attendants' pension funds. I don't think this is too constructive.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, I guess the question again is, what would have happened in the absence of Carl Icahn coming in? What was happening to TWA at the time? And I want us - Marilyn, are you familiar...</s>SHERRY: Well, it wasn't properly managed, and it was worth a lot more than the stock was selling for (unintelligible).</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Well, let's bring in NPR's Marilyn Geewax.</s>MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: This is why these arguments can be so complicated because there were lots of airlines that got involved with various takeover kinds of plans and mergers. That's certainly true of the steel industry, too. But a lot of those businesses would have gone out of business anyway. And some people would argue that when the funds that made money from either taking away their pension plans or laying off workers or whatever that created new profits that could be invested in new and more profitable ventures.</s>So how you pull back far enough to look at the really big picture: Did money that some company made in its profits by shutting down some old steel mill that created a new pool of capital to put into a Google and ultimately it created more jobs or is it just vicious and it just crushes people? Those are awfully tough to get enough data to - and stand back long enough to see the big picture. So that's why it's so debatable.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Which - and as you say, debatable, I guess, that's why it's rhetorically so available to Rick Perry out there. It's an easy enough slogan to throw around without having to pin down on either side.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Can I jump in here, make two points?</s>STEVEN DAVIS: Very quickly, Steven, because we're (unintelligible).</s>STEVEN DAVIS: First, I just want to endorse - I largely share the view that Eileen just expressed that it is hard to evaluate these issues. The second point I wanted to make is because many of the private equity companies acquired by private equity are in some distress...</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: Steven, I'm sorry I need you to wrap in 15 seconds.</s>STEVEN DAVIS: OK. There's a lot of scope for cherry-picking good cases and bad cases, and I think we see that on both sides of the issue.</s>JOHN DONVAN, HOST: All right. Thank you very much for your time, all of you. Eileen Appelbaum is a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy Research, who joined us in Studio 3A, and Steven Davis, professor of international business and economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who co-wrote the article "Private Equity is a Force for Good," which ran on theatlantic.com on Monday. And thanks as always to Marilyn Geewax, NPR senior business editor. You can find a link to her piece "So, Um, What Is A Private Equity Firm?" at npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. She also joined us in Studio 3A. Thank you, Marilyn. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Gustavo Arellano of AskaMexican.net, blogger Carmen Van Kerckhove and Angela Shelton and Frances Callier of the the comedy duo Frangela, weigh in on the question.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: And for some more political analysis, we're joined now by columnist Gestavo Arellano of askamexican.net, diversity consultant and blogger Carman Van Kerchove, and our comedy duo known as Frangela, Angela Shelton and Francis Callier. Welcome all of you.</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): Hi.</s>Ms. CARMEN VAN KERCHOVE (Blogger): Hi.</s>Ms. ANGELA SHELTON (Comedian): Hi.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Hi.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: OK. Well, let's pick up where John and Alex left off and talk about Hillary. Should she or should she not exit, and let's start with you Angela.</s>Ms. ANGELA SHELTON (Comedian): I guess I've always been confused by this question. Because it's never been a surprise when these primaries were coming, and the Democratic National Committee made these dates including Howard Dean, so every time he acts like she's just refusing to leave the party, like she's the one downstairs refusing to understand that the keg is empty everybody else has left. The reality is, the vote takes place at the convention.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): I think she should go.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Francis, you think she should go?</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): I think she should go. We need to unite this party. And you know I've said it before, I think she's the better candidate. I think that Barack is a better movement.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: And Gustavo?</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): This campaign is in tatters. She has to leave. She's what, 31 million dollars in debt, she's increasingly becoming more and more bickering, throwing jabs at anybody who doesn't want to believe in her gospel that she was meant to be president. And I'm tired of Hillary Clinton. And I know nowadays we expect our candidates to be done way before the convention. It's not like the old days. When was the last time the Democrats had to fight over the convention? I think it was 68, and look at what happened there.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: And Carmen Van Kerchove, what do you think? And I wonder if you could address what Hillary Clinton has been complaining of recently in an article in the Washington Post yesterday, where she says her campaign has been dogged by sexism on the part of some people who attend her rallies, on the part of the media, and of the part of political commentators all over the place.</s>Ms. CARMEN VAN KERCHOVE (Blogger): Whether or not Clinton should or should not go is really up to Clinton. But it just seems like the odds are against her. I mean this Gallup poll that came out yesterday, shows that Obama is sweeping every single demographic, except for women aged 50 and older. The criticisms that sexism exist are valid, but I don't think that sexism has been an orchestrated campaign tactic from the Obama camp.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Angela, as our lone Hillary supporter on this panel, what do you say to that?</s>Ms. ANGELA SHELTON (Comedian): It actually has nothing to do with my point. I have to say number one, I keep hearing this comparison to '68, and I just don't think it's accurate or fair. In '68 we were in the middle of the rights movement, there were massive riots all around the country. It's absolutely a completely different situation.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): And we're different people.</s>Ms. ANGELA SHELTON (Comedian): Try to compare the convention then to a convention now? It's an unfair and kind of simplistic comparison. Further, neither of them will reach the number of delegates, they can't mathematically, that would put them at 2,025 which would make them the presumptive nominee. Neither of them will.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Here we've had for the last seven years, we haven't been able to talk about anything, about what our government was doing about who was in our government. You weren't patriotic, you weren't supporting the troops, it wasn't appropriate. Now we have this opportunity, for yes for a long time, to do that, and people want to shut it up. I want to hear everything up until that convention. And as for the tit for tat insulting each other back and forth, I've heard it from both sides. I've heard the Hillary people say Obama campaign attacks them and it's sexist, I've heard the Obama people say Hillary attacks the affirmative action candidates, and blah blah blah.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): The reality is when it comes to issues of isms - racism, not so much homophobia, people tend to be a little more out in the open about that unfortunately, but racism and sexism, people lie, you know. And that's why the polling is so off. When people walk out of a poll they're not going to say oh I didn't vote for the black guy 'cause he's black. Even people in the Klan don't say that. You ask the Klan member if he doesn't like black people, and he's says no, I just love white people. Like they won't even say it so I think there's so many X factors here, it's hard to predict.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Gustavo, I heard you wanted to jump in here.</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): Unless you're in West Virginia. It's interesting with Obama. A lot of people have insinuated that Barack's the Manchurian Muslim really, just waiting to assume the position of the White House and then allow al-Qaeda into this country. Even though he has no connection with Islam other than his father, who apparently never really practiced Islam, and he has had more of a challenge to face then Clinton just based on the status, if you want to call it, their isms.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yeah, I guess. I feel like that debate is not, you know, people are going to argue that from both sides. What I think is, we as voters we should be offended because we've been attacked by the media. For the first time in one of the pollings this morning, I was reading an article where they actually polled for in Kentucky to see who was a non-college graduate and who they voted for.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yeah, I feel like that debate is not - you know people are going to argue both on each side.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Yeah, yeah.</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): Yeah.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): For me what I think as voters we should be offended because we've been attacked by the media. For the first time in one of the pollings, after an election this morning, I was reading an article where they actually polled to see who is a non-college graduate and who they voted for.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: There's a new definition of white working class, the subtle insult that lies behind it...</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yes.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: Is that, you know, they're uneducated...</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yeah, uneducated. They're stupid, they don't know what's good for them and it's wrong. Its classist and I don't appreciate it. What most people should know about the working class, is that most of it thinks it's middle class.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Right.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): They have no idea that we're talking about them.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): You know?</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: I think it is interesting how we are sort of seeing white people stereotyped in a way.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Exactly.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: Where suddenly we're hearing people talking about the white vote, and the so called white vote seems to divide either into the "hard working Americans" which seems to be the Kentucky...</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Right.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: Supposedly uneducated crowd that you're talking about. Then there is that sort of lack of surprise that Obama won Oregon because there's this assumption, that well there's all those Portland people who eat, you know, organic vegetables and drink gourmet coffee.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): The intellectually elite.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: White voters are being stereotyped in some of the same ways I think other groups have been stereotyped in the past.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Uh huh.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yeah we all have. We talked about at our last round table about the minority vote. All Black people are voting for Obama, and you know Barack can't get Latino support, and I think we've all proven those things not to be true, too.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'd like to close by asking each of you as the primary season winds to a close, and we begin to gear up for the general election and campaign season, an issue each one of you wants to see discussed that perhaps hasn't gotten the attention during this long, long primary season and I'll start with you, Gustavo.</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): Immigration. You know both Barack and Hillary, they have positions on immigration, but if you ask me what they were I wouldn't be able to tell you. The only person who had any specifics was Tom Pancreto and he said deport them all, build a fence...</s>Mr. GUSTAVO ARELLANO (Columnist, AskaMexican.net): We're done. That's a conversation we need to have.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Carmen?</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: Yeah, I agree with Gustavo. There hasn't really been an in depth conversation about immigration, and it - you know immigration is not just a Hispanic issue. This is an issue that affects people from every single country, and I think it is also very integral to the economic future of America, and to a larger point to define how America sees itself. Is America going to continue to see itself as essentially a white country that's letting in these other people, or is it really going to truly move towards multiracial, multicultural country? I think that's a huge mind shift that needs to still happen.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Francis?</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): I'd like to see Americans start to produce more in this country again.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: I'd like to get a call center back here.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Yeah she's had trouble with her computer.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: And I'm angry about it you know. But I would like to see those jobs going back to people here in this country. I understand why they've left, but I'd like to see them come back.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): I'm going to say for me, civil rights. None of the candidates are stepping forward on the issue of equality under the law in a way that I need to see them do it, none of them. I need to see marriage not as a religious right. It's really important I think for this nation to move forward, that our lives be more reflective of our goals. I'd love to see somebody be willing to stand out on that issue.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Angela Shelton, Francis Callier - Frangela, Gustavo Arellano of askamexican.net, and Carmen Van Kerckhove, who's a diversity consultant and a blogger. Thank you all very much for joining us again.</s>Ms. FRANCIS CALLIER (Comedian): Thank you.</s>Ms. VAN KERCKHOVE: Thank you.

U.S. plans for sanctions on Iran are escalating what some analysts call a covert war between the two countries. Patrick Clawson, director of the Washington Institute's Iran Security Initiative, and Columbia University's Gary Sick discuss how the Obama administration should deal with Iran.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described an Iranian nuclear weapon as a red line - unacceptable to the United States; presumably, cause for war. But many analysts believe that a clandestine war is already under way as Israel and the U.S. try to slow down Iran's nuclear program.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Just last week, an Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in Tehran, at least the fourth to be killed over the past couple of years. Late last year, huge explosions destroyed an Iranian missile base, and various types of sabotage have disrupted Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nobody knows for sure who's responsible. Iran blames Israel, the U.S. and Britain. If you have questions about the ethics and goals of this clandestine war, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, Tuesdays with Dorie - bakers alert. But first, the covert war with Iran, and we begin with Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he directs the Iran Security Initiative. He's kind enough to join us today here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much for coming in.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Thank you for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you've been quoted as saying that a lot of people have asked you when Israel is going to attack Iran, and you say two years ago.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: What's going on now - with assassinations and cyberwar - is, wantonly, acts of war. And when you combine that with the U.N. sanctions, which block Iran's access to many of the key materials and technology that it needs; the U.S. program of encouraging defections from Iran's nuclear program - one of their key scientists showed up in Washington last year, before he made the bad decision to return; and the Swiss government had to reveal the U.S. role in sabotaging equipment going to Iran after they arrested some Swiss for selling things to Iran, and then let them go.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Double embarrassment - they had to reveal that the Swiss were selling equipment for Iran's nuclear program, and then that those pieces had been doctored by the United States to fail.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, the Swiss government made huge publicity announcements about the arrests of these people and saying, this kind of activity cannot be allowed in Switzerland. And then a month later, when they let the people go, the Parliament said, hey, what's going on?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: And the Swiss had to acknowledge that all of those parts that had been sold to Iran had been shipped via Los Alamos - which is not the most logical route.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Not the most logical route. And then there is the Stuxnet worm, the computer virus that appears to have, in some cases, seriously afflicted Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment facilities.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: It also appears to be the gift that keeps on giving, in that it appears that there are still other parts of the Stuxnet virus which can be - which may be activated later on.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so Iran's nuclear program keeps trying to get stalled, and that's the goal here, no?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: They've been at it for 24 years. That's a long time. And as one senior U.S. government official puts it to me, if 24 years from now they're still at it, that will constitute success.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That will - in other words, some people say Iran is as little as a year away; some say longer than that. Some question whether Iran is mounting a nuclear weapons program at all; that's another point. But presumably, if they are, the goal is to stretch that time period out as long as possible with acts of war?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Look, it would be much better if we could engage with Iran and get them to agree to suspend their program, as the Security Council has called on them to do. It would be much better if the Iranians would agree to engage with the Obama administration in official bilateral talks - as for years they said they wanted to do in the United States. And if those things don't happen - well, then we have to look around for alternatives.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this alternative, this clandestine war, preferable to all-out war?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: I would certainly think so. I mean, all-out war has - can go all kinds of ways that would be quite terrible to think about.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's bring another voice into the conversation. Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Middle East Institute; he's also professor of international affairs there at Columbia; joins us by phone from his office in New York. Nice to have you back on the program.</s>GARY SICK: Glad to be here, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And does this amount to warfare by another name?</s>GARY SICK: I think it amounts to warfare, period. The - and actually, I would like to go beyond just the clandestine part because I think there's another kind of stealth attack being mounted, that we tend to dismiss. But first of all, to look at the cyberwarfare - indeed, there's no question that the Stuxnet worm has had an impact on Iran's centrifuges, though from all appearances they seem to have overcome that, and they are now producing enriched uranium once again. Maybe they had - they suffered some problems from it, but you know, they continue to keep on producing.</s>GARY SICK: What was interesting to me was a report today that Israel is under cyberattack. El-Al Airlines and the stock exchange are both suffering denial-of-service attacks. And a - what claims to be a Saudi hacker named Ox Omar has released thousands of Israeli credit card names and numbers and so forth, on a public website.</s>GARY SICK: My point here is that this is something that can actually cut both ways. And, you know, we've been patting ourselves on the back -very much so - about this brilliant cyberattack of Stuxnet but, you know, nobody seems to ask the question of whether there isn't going to be some blowback from that - because of all the fields in the world where you can play, probably the cyberwarfare field is the levelest.</s>GARY SICK: Iran actually has a capacity to hit us almost as great as our capacity to hit them. And that is something which I really wish we had thought about a little bit more, before we started that process.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Indeed, there was some suspicion with the Venezuelan consul in Miami - may have been involved, allegedly, in a plot with Iranian officials to do exactly that, Gary Sick - be involved in some cyberattacks or preparatory to some cyberattacks against the United States. But if it slows down the Iranian nuclear program, is not that a benefit?</s>GARY SICK: Well, it all depends. You see, if this had stopped the Iranian nuclear program, then perhaps you could make that argument. The most it did was force them to stop, re-gear, clean up their system, and then go back to work. And that was a matter of months - I mean, literally, a matter of weeks or months by the time they recovered from the thing.</s>GARY SICK: Now, there may be more; as Patrick Clawson said, more pieces of this ready to go into action later on. But that - but if - for instance, the power plant in your town, in your neighborhood, suddenly goes out of control and blows up. Would you regard that as a reasonable price to pay for that temporary slowdown of the centrifuges in Natanz?</s>GARY SICK: And there will be no fingerprints left on that if it happens. And in fact, you know, our own cybersecurity people, you know, are talking all the time about how truly vulnerable we are, because our entire system works on the Internet and involves that kind of activity.</s>GARY SICK: So you know, I'm a little concerned. And sometimes on these things, we act as if we are able to function with total impunity - we can do what we like, but nobody can do it to us. An Israeli commentator just yesterday made the remark that these assassinations of Iranian scientists - who, at least the Iranians certainly believe are Israeli hits; which, you know, we'll never be able to prove it, probably - what if they started assassinating Western scientists?</s>GARY SICK: So you've got a Western, you know, convention of scientists on some subject and suddenly, some of them are bumped off. There's no security, for the most part, around these events. Is that something that we've either thought about, or we're willing to accept? Maybe the people who carried out the operation are, but the people who are likely to be the targets may not have the same view.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Patrick Clawson, that would certainly be described as an act of terrorism.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Yes. And look, Israel already faces a situation in which Iran provides weapons and financing for terrorist groups that are trying to kill innocent Israelis all the time and unfortunately, succeed all too often. I'm talking about Hezbollah and Hamas.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: And so Israel feels that Iran's shooting at Israel, and those who are shooting shouldn't be surprised to get shot back at. So I don't think it would be appropriate for the United States to be in a campaign of assassinations with the Iranian nuclear scientists, but Israel is in a different situation.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And...</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: We - by the way, the United States is in a vigorous campaign of assassinations. We do it through Predator drones, including against our own citizens - Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, for instance. Mr. Awlaki was never accused of having picked up a gun, but we felt it was all right to kill him without any trial.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can get some callers in on the conversation. We're talking about the covert war against Iran's nuclear ambitions - 800-989-8255; email talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Tom, Tom with us from Greenville in North Carolina.</s>TOM: Thank you, yes. I was wondering who the supporting countries or states - that are supporting Iran's goals to become a nuclear power, either through just energy or nuclear weapons.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, those are two different things, and very different things. Patrick Clawson, if you're talking about nuclear energy - clearly, Russia, which provided the reactor at Bushehr, which is a nuclear energy plant; if you're talking about nuclear weapons - well, you're talking about a rather murkier group of countries, including Pakistan, North Korea?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, we don't know about North Korea. We know very little about what North Korea may or may not be doing with Iran's nuclear program, and it's very troubling. There was a case of a Ukrainian scientist who the IAEA pointed out was providing considerable assistance to...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But unclear that he was acting on the behest of the Ukrainian government.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Exactly, correct. And indeed, he felt that he was helping with a process for producing artificial diamonds, which is something that he has long been convinced is how this technology can be used. Not everybody else agrees that that's the principal use you'd make of his technology. He spent many years in the Soviet nuclear program.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But at this point, Iran's nuclear program may not need any more assistance from the outside.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Not clear. If I were an Iranian leader, I'd be kind of nervous about how well my systems would work at actually making highly enriched uranium. No one's ever been able to make highly enriched uranium with the kind of centrifuges that Iran has got working.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tom, thanks very much for the call.</s>TOM: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the clandestine war against Iran's nuclear program. Our guests: Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute, where he directs the Iran Security Initiative; Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia University, and professor of international affairs there; 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. Last week, motorcyclists streaked by a car, attached a magnetic bomb. The blast tore the silver Peugeot apart and killed the nuclear scientist riding inside, and his driver. The scientist, described as a chemistry expert, director of Iran's main uranium - nuclear enrichment facility. It also fatally wounded his driver.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Iran's atomic energy organization condemned the bombing as a heinous act, and vowed to continue down the nuclear path. As the U.S. and its allies lean on Iran to abandon nuclear ambitions through diplomacy and sanctions, a covert plan to pressure Iran seems to be gaining steam.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you have questions about the ethics and goals of this clandestine war, give us a call, 800-989-8255; email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org; click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Our guests are Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute; and Gary Sick, of Columbia University's Middle East Institute. Gary Sick, you mentioned earlier that this clandestine warfare is just part of the campaign against Iran. The other part is these economic sanctions, which are ratcheting ever higher.</s>GARY SICK: Yes, you know, we've been using sanctions against Iran - usually, financial sanctions, or sanctions against their energy industry - we've been doing it - the United States has been doing it very actively since 1995. We had some sanctions on Iran before that, but those were the directed ones against their energy industry.</s>GARY SICK: And so we started in 1995 to sanction their industry, and oppose Iran. At the time we started those sanctions, Iran had not one, single centrifuge turning in the country. Today, after more than 16 years of gradually increasing sanctions, Iran now has at least 8,000 operational centrifuges, and a considerable store of low-enriched uranium. To me, that's a description of a failed policy.</s>GARY SICK: And what we have done at each stage is increase the sanctions because the last ones didn't work. You finally get to a point where you can't tell sanctions from warfare. The sanctions that the Congress has imposed now, in the latest defense authorization bill, basically call for the United States - for all the countries of the world but the United States, in particular, to force Iran's banks not to be able to - not to be able to sell their oil, so that Iran basically is cut off from its oil sales completely. That's 50 percent of Iran's income.</s>GARY SICK: Now, I think most countries who were faced with a threat of 50 percent of their national revenues being cut off would regard that as a hostile act, no matter how you look at it. And I think we need to remember, too, that if those sanctions were actually successful - they actually succeeded in cutting off Iran's oil exports - Iran would then have no motivation to not close the Strait of Hormuz.</s>GARY SICK: Right now, they can't close it, and they would not even be tempted to close it because their own oil goes out that way. But if their oil is cut off, then probably you can assume that Iran is not going to sit on its hands and simply, you know, moan its fate. It's going to probably do something.</s>GARY SICK: And there are things that Iran could do to interfere with the oil-shipping in the Persian Gulf, which is a huge part of the world's oil supply. So I think, again, we need to think about what the consequences are of some of the things that we're doing.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Patrick Clawson, the Iranians have always said if we can't ship oil through the Strait of Hormuz, nobody can ship oil through the Strait of Hormuz.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, the U.S.'s goal is to get back to negotiations. You talk to anybody in the Obama Iran team, and they portray these sanctions as an instrument. And the objective is to get back to negotiations, to engage with Iran and to reach an agreement with the Iranians.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: And so it's not like the Obama administration is a bunch of warmongers; quite the contrary. They see the way this dispute's going to be settled is through a negotiation. And the question is, what can they do to get negotiations started?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Obama offered negotiations when he came into office, extended a hand of friendship. And the Iranians, who for years had said that they wanted to have negotiations without preconditions with the U.S. government, have done exactly nothing to take that up.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: And that's very frustrating to the Obama team because their objective's always focused on, how do we get back to negotiations? It's been more than a year since the last time that Iran sat down with the countries negotiating about the nuclear issue - that's the so-called P5-plus-1, the permanent five members of the United Nations plus Germany. And nobody would be happier than the Obama administration if there could be fruitful discussions again.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Now, there's talk about a new round of negotiations. The Iranians claim that they're interested in this. Let's hope that's true. Let's hope that this time when they show up, they do something other than talk about their principles for how to manage the world - and every other topic except the nuclear matter.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Tony(ph), Tony's on the line from San Antonio.</s>TONY: So many questions, Neal, so little time.</s>TONY: One point - actually, I have two questions. First, should they weaponize their nuclear program, how far away do they - do your panel guests feel they are from actually being able to deliver those weapons? And where is the rest of the Middle East? Where is Saudi? Where is Turkey in this equation, should we say - this negotiation equation? They have a more vested interest in a nuclear-free Iran than the United States does.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A couple of interesting questions, Tony. Delivery systems - Patrick Clawson, that mysterious explosion that devastated a missile-development facility outside of Tehran, and killed a general. The Iranians initially said it was an accident, and it's increasingly - a lot of people think it was an act of sabotage.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, Iran has a pretty sophisticated missile program, which they're - working away at it. However, it probably is going to be several years before they could have a nuclear warhead that would fit on a missile that they could deliver, say, to Israel. And that's the reason that U.S. officials - and increasingly, Israeli officials - are reasonably confident that Iran's not going to rush to assemble a nuclear device, a primitive, bomb-like thing which they could explode - similar to what the North Koreans did. But instead, Iran's going to wait until it can actually have a warhead on a missile.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The whole package.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: The whole package, and that would certainly be several years from now.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And in terms of its neighbors - Gary Sick, Saudi Arabia is a rival to Iran; I think that's clear on any number of fronts. Turkey, though - that's another question.</s>GARY SICK: Yeah, I think the neighbors each have their own foreign policy, and Iran has its own foreign policy toward those neighbors. I would like to address that first part of the question.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure, go ahead.</s>GARY SICK: Because with regard to Iran actually building a nuclear weapon, the IAEA report, even the most alarming one - the most recent one - did not say that Iran was building.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: No smoking gun.</s>GARY SICK: There really isn't. And I was really struck the other day when Leon Panetta, who is now the secretary of Defense but was just not long ago the head of the CIA, he was asked point-blank, is Iran building a nuclear weapon? And his answer to that was, no.</s>GARY SICK: And I thought that was really - that's the first time I've heard a senior U.S. official be so blunt and straightforward about it. Now, one can be concerned that Iran might change its mind and start building a nuclear weapon, but they haven't done it thus far. And it's the best judgment of the United States, and the intelligence services elsewhere, that they haven't done.</s>GARY SICK: So to me, that's the starting point for analysis - which is basically, we do have quite a bit of time. Iran has been at this nuclear process since - call it 1985, when they probably made their first decision to get involved in a nuclear program. Here they are, all these years later, and they don't have a nuclear weapon.</s>GARY SICK: No other country in the world, including Pakistan, which was really - had very little industrial capability, from the time they decided to build a bomb, they had one in hand within 12 years. Iran has been at this now for over 20 years, and we still - they still don't have a bomb.</s>GARY SICK: I think you can either draw the conclusion that Iran is simply stupid, totally incompetent and have no ability to do these things; or you can draw the conclusion that in fact, contrary to popular belief, they really haven't been in a hurry to actually build a bomb. They've been interested in building a nuclear capability.</s>GARY SICK: And these two things get confused in people's minds. I think it's important to keep those separate and to realize that in fact, there is time. And I do agree with Patrick that in fact, the answer to this is negotiations. I think we've seen some examples of negotiation in the past. I must add what Patrick said - that we proposed a swap solution for some of the uranium in 2009, the Turks and the Brazilians, at our - with our support, actually negotiated such an agreement with Iran, and we turned it down in 2010.</s>GARY SICK: Why? Because it was getting in the way of our sanctions regime. And basically, if you let the sanctions drive things, then our objective is not to get to the negotiating table - which Iran was clearly offering at that point - but rather, to get more sanctions. We have to really keep it clear in our own head.</s>GARY SICK: And I think if you look at what the Congress is doing right now, it's hard to read the new sanctions laws as being aimed to getting back to the negotiating table. It's intended for regime change. It is intended to basically, force Iran into a submissive position. And I think that is probably a very dangerous way to go about doing our business.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In there, you may have heard when Gary Sick was talking about why it had taken Iran so long to not develop a nuclear weapon, and you may have heard Patrick Clawson say sanctions in the background. But any case, let's see if we get another caller in on the conversation. Bill is on the line from Little Rock.</s>BILL: Hello. Thank you. And I hope everyone is doing well today.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thank you.</s>BILL: My question and - is - concerns the assasinations, and why it appears as though it's assumed that they're being done by other countries and their operatives, as opposed to some group in Iran that maybe doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and they want to stop it. Is there any possibility of that whatsoever?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Patrick Clawson, I've heard some speculation that maybe some of these scientists were taken out by the Iranians themselves, for various reasons. Maybe they were about to defect, or something like that. But I've not heard that speculation, as Bill mentions, that this might have been an internal group.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, Iranians love conspiracy theories, and there are lots of conspiracy theories out there. But what we do know about these assassinations is that they were terribly professionally conducted. And that's not been typical of political assassinations inside Iran. There have been lots of assassinations inside Iran, but they've been done by pretty basic techniques - like, you know, shooting a gun, or a knife - whereas these assassinations were really, very sophisticated. For one thing, the people got away.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: And the agency which has used that kind of sophisticated assassination technique quite a bit in - around the world has been the Mossad. There was the episode in Dubai; a guy got caught on cameras. There was an episode in Oman a few years ago, which they botched. But this is typical of the Mossad's technique. So I would say that the Mossad starts out as the usual suspect. Now, sometimes, the obvious suspect is not the guilty party. But boy, I would start out with the Mossad as the obvious suspect.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And cui bono - who benefits?</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: It's quite clear to see how the Israelis benefit. I mean, after all, it's the former head of the Mossad who has been the loudest voice inside Israel, saying there's no reason that Israel needs to have airstrikes against the Iranian nuclear program. The quiet subtext, which is an open secret in Israel, is what he's saying is: My agency solved this problem. We took cared of it; we've solved it. No reason for the military to get involved.</s>GARY SICK: Neal, could I add a comment on this?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Please.</s>GARY SICK: I - with response to the question about, could it be an internal group? Obviously, I agree with Patrick that Iran is full of conspiracy theories. But in reality, in January of 2011 - just a year ago - Iran actually announced that it had captured the killers of the – of a previous assassination; that they were people who had had training by, you know, by Mossad; that they had been trained by - this got very, very little coverage in the American media.</s>GARY SICK: And it may not be true. I mean, they may be making this up. But at least, I think, there's no question that the Iranians truly believe that this is an outside hand that is doing this. And I think they've got very good reason for that. The conspiracy theories that somehow, the Iranians are doing it themselves - and I agree with Patrick very much, that the kind of sophisticated techniques are not typical of little groups that happened to form in a country like Iran, and carry out a really sophisticated assassination.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bill, thanks very much for the call. Gary Sick, of Columbia University; Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. And Gary Sick, I wanted to ask you further about a piece you just wrote today, where you looked at what seemed to be very divergent statements from the Obama administration. Yes, on the one hand, Secretary of Defense Panetta says Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, to build one is a red line; to close the Straits of Hormuz is a redline. There are bellicose statements coming. And at the same time, you suggest three-dimensional chess. What are you talking about?</s>GARY SICK: It seems to me that the Obama administration has three, separate problems. One is that they really would like to get - that they worry very much about getting involved in a shooting war - which actually, there's almost nothing good that could come of that for the United States, for Iran, for the region - anything. So I think they don't want to get dragged into a war. The second thing is, they've got a problem because Israel continues to threaten an independent strike on Iran.</s>GARY SICK: And I think the administration has to worry about that because if it happened, we would be dragged into it as well. And the third thing is that there's an election going on. And Obama has to worry about running for re-election under the charge that he's being soft on Iran, which already people are saying, quite openly, on the Republican side.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: With one exception. Go ahead.</s>GARY SICK: So this is a kind of three-dimensional chess problem, that he's got multiple messages. So when you hear two or three different things coming from the same mouth in the Iranian - in the Obama administration, one way to read that is that they're delivering messages to different people. And it can be very, very confusing to listen to. But that's at least one interpretation of why you're hearing so many dissident voices in the administration.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Patrick Clawson, we may have years before a deliverable nuclear weapon, if that's Iran's goal - but maybe not so long if those sanctions take effect in the next few months.</s>PATRICK CLAWSON: Well, we could be at a testing moment between two different theories, one theory being that the Obama administration, that by pressing Iran harder and harder, we will get them back to the negotiating table for fruitful negotiations. And the other is the theory of the Iranian government, that they can outlast any kind of sanctions. And it does look like we're coming to - well, we're going to find out this year which of those two theories is correct.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute, where he directs the Iran Security Initiative, joined us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much for your time. And Gary Sick, senior research scholar at Columbia University's Middle East Institute, where he's also a professor of international affairs at Columbia, with us by phone from New York. Gary Sick, nice to have you with us today.</s>GARY SICK: Thank you very much, Neal.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That's the question cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tackles in his new book, A Universe from Nothing. In it, he surveys the discoveries that have led to scientists' current understanding of the universe, and explores what the future of the universe may be.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Speaking of dark matter and space-time, one of the major questions about our universe is how did it all come into being, and my next guest tackles that question in his new book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing." Lawrence Krauss is also a foundation professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University in Tempe. He's also in our NPR Washington studios. Welcome back, Lawrence.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It's always good to be back, Ira.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: What about this graininess stuff? You were listening to that. What do you think about that experiment?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, that was a speculative idea, and most speculative ideas are wrong, and that's why it takes a while to make progress. And so I - in some sense I wouldn't call it a failure for theory. One of the most exciting, or two of the most exciting states to be in if you're a theorist are either wrong or confused.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're going to leave us in an enlightened state by the time you're done today, talking about your book. The title of your book, give us a thumbnail sketch of how you get something from nothing.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, the title of the book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" deals with this question. It's been around for as long as people have really started to ask questions about the universe and is really at the heart of a lot of the world's religions. Why is there something rather than nothing?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And while it's a little pretentious, I'll be pretentious anyway, the idea, I think, is similar, if you think about it, to the origin of life, Darwin's demonstration that life, which appears to be designed here on Earth, the diversity of life can actually arise, that diversity can arise by natural causes.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And we don't yet know the true origin of life, but we think we'll understand it by chemistry, and what we're discovering is that in fact physics has suggested that maybe the same is true for the whole universe, that we don't need a creator.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 is our number, we're talking with Lawrence Krauss author of a new book, which talks about, you know, how the universe began, where it's heading, how we got here, all that kind of stuff, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing."</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And if you'd like to ask Lawrence a question and get in on the conversation, maybe you have a question about how the universe is working, as I say our number is 1-800-989-8255. Tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. Go to our Facebook page, /scifri, and our website at sciencefriday.com.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We'll take all of your questions and put them all together and ask Lawrence to talk about them. So stay with us. We'll be right back after this break.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. We're talking with Lawrence Krauss, who is author of "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing." He's also a foundation professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University in Tempe.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Our number, 1-800-989-8255. How did the idea - how did - you said that the physics has changed, what we know about the universe has changed so much, dramatically over the last few years, especially the idea that what we think of empty space is really not empty, correct?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: That's exactly right. Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can't measure them, then it doesn't sound like it's science, but in fact you can't measure them directly.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it's a little trickier.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn't have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there's no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. In your book you talk about dialing backwards, first the idea that the universe is expanding at greater than the speed of light. Is that correct, still expanding?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Oh, absolutely. In fact, the discovery of this dark energy has told us that the future will be quite different than we thought, and that's one of the things I talk about in the book. Because of this dark energy, this energy of empty space, which is gravitationally repulsive, it's causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, to speed up.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: In fact, the discovery of that was awarded this year's Nobel Prize. But if you think about what that implies for the future, distant galaxies are moving away from us faster and faster, and eventually they indeed will all be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, which is allowed in general relativity, and we won't see them.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And the universe, in the far future, will be cold and dark and empty. So in fact as my late friend Christopher Hitchens, who was writing the forward for the book before he passed away, used to say: Nothing is heading towards us as fast as it can. So another answer to the question why is there something rather than nothing is just wait.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And of course we're getting questions already. Here's a tweet from Maggie Kelley(ph), who says: So if space is infinitely expanding, what is it expanding into?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, that's a good question. It's a question people often ask. And the answer is it doesn't need to expand into anything. The only two ways I know to try and explain this - well, the simplest way perhaps is to think of a rubber bedsheet that's infinitely big. Now stretch it. It's now bigger, but it wasn't expanding into anything because it was already infinitely big.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Now, if you don't like infinities, and there's a good reason to not be comfortable with infinities, just think of a balloon, and of course when you blow up a balloon, you think, sure, it's expanding into the room, but that's because you've embedded this two-dimensional surface of a balloon into this three-dimensional space.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But if the two-dimensional surface of the balloon was all there was, as it expanded, the balloon would get bigger, and every dot on that balloon, if you painted dots on that balloon, would move away from every other dot, but it wouldn't be expanding into anything, it would just be getting bigger.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: So our universe, in fact, doesn't need to expand into anything. Space can expand on its own, whether the universe is finite or infinite, without boundary and without expanding into anything.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Scott in San Francisco. Hi Scott, welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>SCOTT: Hi, and thanks for taking my call. I'll make it quick. I was just wondering if - are some ideas being investigated in space-time recently, in terms of the Higgs field and the Higgs Boson, are these in some way kind of a revisiting of the idea of aluminiferous ether, as they used to talk about? I know there's differences, but is this kind of ether revisited now?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, that's a good question. In a kind of philosophical sense, yes. Both the Higgs field and this dark energy that's permeating everything are indeed permeating empty space. And in that sense empty space is - has properties that you would not otherwise imagine, just like we - they used to imagine as an ether.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Of course, a difference was the ether was thought to be necessary to propagate light, and it was also thought to create a special frame of reference, and neither of these things do that. So neither of these things are of ether.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But in a philosophical sense they hearken back to the idea that empty space is full of something.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. You mentioned in your book that we are lucky to be living in this time in the universe.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Yeah, I mean for a variety of reasons. One is in the far future, and by the far future I mean hundreds of billions of years, astronomers and radio hosts on planets around other stars will look out at the universe, and what they'll see is the universe we thought we lived in 100 years ago, all of the other galaxies will have disappeared expect for our own, and people will assume, or beings will assume, they live in a universe that's basically infinite, dark and empty except for one galaxy, with no evidence of the Big Bang.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: So we're living at this rare cosmic instant in which we're lucky enough to observe the Big Bang. By rare - by cosmic instant I mean a few hundred billion years, but in a cosmic sense that's an instant. And so we're fortunate to be able to see that. At the same time, of course, it should give us some cosmic humility because it suggests - it indicates something that's very important to realize.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: When you're talking about the whole universe, we're limited by what we can see because science is an empirical discipline, and we have to be able - and the universe continues to surprise us, and it only can surprise us if we can measure it. And we're stuck in one universe, and we're stuck at the time we live in, 13.72 billion years after the Big Bang, and maybe a lot earlier we might have been able to discover other things, or a lot later, but we are fascinatingly lucky at this point to be able to see the evidence of the Big Bang.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And moreover, in even a grander sense, when one talks about a universe that could easily have come into existence by accident, I even show how current theory suggests maybe even the laws of physics themselves came into being by accident, with no purpose, no design, you might get depressed.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But from my point of view, it's really exciting and should energize us because it suggests that we're unbelievably fortunate that we happen to live in a universe that not only supports life but that consciousness has evolved, and we can appreciate this remarkable universe around us, and we should make the moment - most of our brief moment in the sun.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: We should provide the meaning of the universe in the meaning of our own lives. So I think science doesn't necessarily have to get in the way of kind of spiritual fulfillment. In fact, I would argue the real story of the universe is far more interesting than any myths or fairy tales that people wrote thousands of years before they even knew the Earth went around the sun.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We're talking to Lawrence Krauss, author of "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing." Let's go to John(ph) in Salt Lake City. Hi, welcome.</s>JOHN: Thank you. Yeah, I just had a comment. I thought maybe it would be a better idea to call it God's glue rather than dark matter, just to comment. Thanks.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well...</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, you know, you hearken back to the statement of Steve Weinberg, which is really true. I put it a slightly different way. The universe is the way it is whether you like it or not. And you can call it whatever you want, but - and you might - and scientists might want something, and religious people might want something too. And I think the great difference and the great wonder of science is that our faith is shakable, not unshakable, that if we discover the universe isn't the way we wanted it to be, well, too bad.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: In fact, we learn to like it even better.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. Gary in Groveland, California. Hi, Gary.</s>GARY: Hi, thank you for taking my call.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Go ahead.</s>GARY: With all due respect, and I find what you're saying fascinating, but where is the practicality for us on Earth? What is it doing for us today or even in the very near future?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, you know, it's a good question. And I put it back to you. I'd say, well, what does a Bach cantata or a Picasso painting do for us? I think the point is we are human beings, and one of the most wonderful aspect of being human beings is being creative and asking questions and trying to understand our place in the universe. And it is absolutely true that understanding the beginning and end of the universe is not going to produce a better toaster. But I'm always amazed that people - for me, one of the great virtues of science is it's a cultural activity, like art and literature and music. It enhances the experience of being human, and it addresses the questions that I'm sure you've asked about your own existence.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And if we can get new insights into our own existence and our place in the cosmos, well, that's what happens when we attend a good play or see a good painting. It gives us a new perspective of our place in the universe. And I happen to think that is worth it for its own sake. Plus, I happen to think these ideas are among the most remarkable and astounding ideas human beings have ever come up with. And we owe it to - we scientists owe it to the people to try and explain what's happening, and I think they enhance the quality of our existence. And...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And - I'm sorry.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: ...you know, it's not just technology. I think that's what is really important. Now, of course, there are always side benefits of doing - of every time we build a new big machine like the Large Hadron Collider and push the limits of technology, we develop tools that later on are used in society. But I don't think we should justify this remarkable adventure just because of the side effects.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. Here - a tweet from Nate Koch(ph) says would there theoretically be no time if there were no matter or energy?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It's a very good question. Of course, the answer is we don't know, but we do know that space and time are related to matter and energy and general activity. And we cannot follow the laws of physics back to T equals zero, because we don't have a full theory of quantum gravity. But it is quite possible, and indeed quite plausible, that time itself arose just as space arose. And there was no concept of time. It's something that arose as the world became classical. So it could be that the question what happened before the big bang is not even a good question, because before it had no meaning.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It's not necessarily the case because we really don't know. We are at the limits of our knowledge. And I guess that's something I want to stress for people who think, you know, I don't want to claim that we know the universe came from nothing. What is amazing is that we can see plausible mechanisms by which that happened. And I find that development truly astounding, and remarkable and worth celebrating.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Talking with Lawrence Krauss, author of "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing." Let's go to Bens Red(ph) in Manchester, New Hampshire. Hi there.</s>BENS RED: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. My question is, is (unintelligible) the essence of the sun shine? I mean, why the sun even shines? Why the (unintelligible)? Why do we assume (unintelligible) because it's kind of interesting the sun would shine every day and (unintelligible)? (Unintelligible) we don't understand, it doesn't make us that - should not allow us to say that no creator. It's kind of - we don't have an answer, and we (unintelligible) because maybe we (unintelligible) trying to get an explanation for our existence. So if our - I'll take my answer off the air.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: OK. Thanks.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, you know, look, I think the point is can - often, by the way, when we ask why questions, what we really mean is how. We don't really mean why. If we ask why are there nine planets or eight planets, if we get rid of Pluto, which I'll never do, we really mean...</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: We really mean, you know, how did those planets formed. And what's remarkable is to try and understand how the universe evolved, and that's what science tries to do – not really. And so - and when we ask why does the sun shine, what we really mean is what are the processes that cause the sun to shine? And one of the truly great and remarkable developments of the 20th century, which again is worth celebrating, is that we understand the processes that actually power the sun.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: We do understand how the sun shines. Or, if you wish, why the sun shines, we have discovered nuclear energy. We've discovered that if you have a collapsing gas and it heats up, the nuclear reactions will produce an object that will burn brightly for 10 billion years, and we can actually predict its structure and compare it with observation. And that is amazing. That - without ever having been inside the sun, we now know how the sun works. Those things are worth celebrating.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And if you say, well, look, you don't need someone inside the sun, some divine intelligence constantly producing energy, I don't think that diminishes the universe. As Richard Feynman used to say, you know, just - if you understand how a rainbow works, it doesn't make it any less magnificent. It makes it more magnificent. And if it means that we don't need an intelligence intervening every day in our lives, I happen to think that makes the universe actually even more fascinating.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. What about the idea of a multiverse, that there are infinite numbers of other universes around?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, you know, that's something I deal with at the end of the book because, you know, it's not a concept that I'm pretty fond of, but it - we seemed to be driven there by our theories, and it does suggest the last bit, because some people, indeed when I debate this question of nothing, they say, well, look, you can get rid of space. You can get rid of stuff in space, the first kind of nothing. You can even get rid of space, but you still have the laws. Who created the laws?</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, it turns out that we've been driven both from ideas from cosmology - from a theory called inflation or even string theory - that suggests there may be extra dimensions - to the possibility that our universe isn't unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don't have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. It's called the entropic idea, and it's not - it's - it may be right.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It's not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they're very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe. And some people said, well, you know, physicists have just created this multiverse because they want to get rid of God.</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Nothing could be further than - to - from the truth. The multiverse, we've been driven to it by our discoveries in cosmology and particle physics. We've been driven to that possibility, which seems plausible and maybe even likely. And if as a corollary, it allows for our universe to be spontaneously created and even the laws created, well, that's OK, but we weren't driven there because of some philosophical prejudice against a creator. That didn't even enter into the discussion.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, Lawrence. Thank you very much. You're always short of words, as usual.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's always great. (Unintelligible). Lawrence Krauss' new book "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing." You're getting even better as a writer. I mean, my standard is George Gamow, and you come very close to him as a writer in this book. So...</s>LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, that's a great compliment. Thank you very much.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Terrific, easy read on this, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing," Lawrence Krauss.

At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, scientists talked about mapping dark matter, measuring the 'graininess' of spacetime, and discovering the smallest exoplanets ever, using the Kepler space telescope. Ron Cowen, who reported on the meeting for Nature, discusses those findings.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I am Ira Flatow. A few weeks ago, we talked about the discovery of new exoplanets, those planets outside of our solar system. There were the first Earth-sized exoplanets, and we had another exoplanet smack dab in the middle of the Goldilocks Zone, you know, where liquid water could exist. That was another first.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, the planet party continues because this week, astronomers announced the discovery of the smallest exoplanet so far, again with the Kepler Space Telescope. They presented those findings at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: My next guest has been reporting on the meeting all week. He's here to tell us a few bits of news about the universe. Ron Cowen is a freelance science Writer for Nature and Science, among others, and you can find links to his stories at the meeting at sciencefriday.com. He joins us from NPR in Washington. Welcome back, Ron.</s>RON COWEN: Thanks, Ira.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Exciting stuff?</s>RON COWEN: Yeah, there's a lot of neat stuff. The exoplanet discovery, there's actually three new planets that - and they're all tinier than ever before, but the tiniest is about the size of Mars. All three of these guys orbit the same tiny dwarf star, and it's actually the most compact or miniature solar system we know about.</s>RON COWEN: And none of these are in the Goldilocks Zone. They are all way too hot, too close to their parent star for liquid water to be there. But it's also interesting because all three of them are almost certainly rocky. They're tiny, so that they probably couldn't have held on to their atmosphere if they had one, but also they're so close to their parent star that the star would have - the heat from the star would have evaporated them.</s>RON COWEN: So they're really rocky bodies, and now we can study rocky bodies, you know, similar in some ways to the ones in our own solar system.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So now that we're finding these things, we're figuring out there might be a lot of rocky planets out there.</s>RON COWEN: Well that's right because the interesting thing is that this - these bodies were found around red dwarf stars, these are stars half to one-sixth the size of the sun. They're the most common type of star in the Milky Way. About 80 percent of the stars in the Milky Way are red dwarfs.</s>RON COWEN: And the thinking is that if we found a few around one red dwarf - and also Kepler doesn't mostly look at red dwarfs in the first place, it looks around sun-like stars mostly. If it's already found a system like this, the astronomers are saying that our Milky Way is teeming with rocky bodies, perhaps some of them in the Goldilocks Zone.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's talk about another story at the meeting, about mapping dark matter. I thought this was really interesting, too. The largest map of dark matter ever made, that right?</s>RON COWEN: That's right, that's right. Now dark matter, you know, is invisible. You can't see it. So you might think, well, you know, how can you map it? And it's sort of - if you - I'm going to go back to Goldilocks in a different way, Goldilocks and the three bears. I mean, if you're one of the three bears, and you didn't know Goldilocks was there, well, you saw your bed was broken, or you saw the porridge was eaten.</s>RON COWEN: Well, dark matter, which makes up most of the mass in the universe but can't be seen, it has a gravitational tug. And according to Einstein, light from a distant object like a galaxy as it passes near one of these big, massive clumps of dark matter, will get bent, and the image will look distorted.</s>RON COWEN: So they looked at images of 10 million galaxies across four different parts of the universe, and they statistically found a whole lot of distortions of these images. They could not account for these distortions by ordinary matter, there wasn't enough of it, so they therefore mapped the location of the dark matter, how they clump together.</s>RON COWEN: This is important because we believe that dark matter is really what brought most of the visible mass together in the universe to form galaxies like the one we live in. So this is a way to make visible the invisible. It's also neat because dark matter is thought to be made of some exotic particles, we don't know what they're made of. The more we can at least map how they clump together and things like that is more of a clue to what they might be made of.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Does it tell us anything about that spooky dark energy stuff that's all out there?</s>RON COWEN: This is really just about dark matter. I mean, it has to fit into the overall rubric that dark matter is a certain percentage of the mass energy of the universe, but no, this is really, as I understand it, just about dark matter itself.</s>RON COWEN: But it's the largest one, and it's also matching what the computer simulations that theorists have done for years. So they believe they're on the right track for how the universe formed and how galaxies formed.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's always delightful when the actual facts match the theory, especially in physics.</s>RON COWEN: Yes. That's right, that's right. This is such exotic stuff.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: There was one study that was looking at the nature of space-time, right?</s>RON COWEN: Right, right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Tell us about that.</s>RON COWEN: So, yeah, and this is a little bit more complicated. So - and this has to do with gravity but in a different way. So the other forces of nature, like electromagnetism, like the force that holds protons and neutrons together in an atom, the so-called strong force and another type of force, they have all been united with quantum theory. But gravity has not.</s>RON COWEN: And the other thing you should know is that, according to Einstein, gravity is actually a geometric theory, that we can replace the idea of gravity by just saying space-time is curved, and it's more curved where there's more gravity.</s>RON COWEN: So some people think in order to unify gravity with quantum theory that space-time itself has to be quantized, it has to be grainy on some tiny, tiny scale. And if that's true, certain wavelengths of light, which are the highest - correspond to the highest energy photons of light, might bump into this graininess and might be slowed down by it, whereas photons of lower energy would not because they're longer wavelength, and it's like, I don't know, a bull in a china shop or something, you just - a big guy wouldn't see these tiny little grains.</s>RON COWEN: So basically someone, actually several people, looked at what's called a gamma ray burst, which is a short-lived event, it's light generated by the explosion of a star, they looked at a high-energy photon and a low-energy photon and essentially it was erased. They knew or believed it was emitted at the same time, about 7 billion years ago.</s>RON COWEN: And then they were detected by an Earth-orbiting telescope called Fermi, and you know what? This high-energy photon and the much lower energy one came - arrived - it was almost a dead heat, like within about a hundredth of a second of each other.</s>RON COWEN: So according to this, that graininess, if it is there, did not disturb the light. Maybe graininess is the wrong idea, or maybe quantum gravity doesn't somehow become important to a smaller scale size, a smaller grain size than we might have thought.</s>RON COWEN: And it's just - it's a beginning of a way to get at this. You know, when I talk about graininess, this is like a trillionth of a trillionth the size of a hydrogen atom. I'm talking really small. And it's kind of amazing that this cosmic race across halfway of the universe can start, start to say something about this stuff.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So theory wins one today, and theory loses one today.</s>RON COWEN: That might be possible, yes, yes.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: As I think Steven Weinberg once said: Physics doesn't care what scientists want.</s>RON COWEN: That's right, that's right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you, Ron.</s>RON COWEN: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Take care. Thanks for being with us today. Ron Cowen is a freelance science writer for Nature and Science, among others, and you can find links to his stories from that meeting there at sciencefriday.com.

The devastating birth defect microcephaly may be just a warning sign for the range of problems babies will suffer. Rob Stein tells Linda Wertheimer about what else scientists are learning about Zika.

LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. Rachel Martin's away. I'm Linda Wertheimer. The Food and Drug Administration now says all U.S. blood donation centers must screen for the Zika virus. News about the first cases of local transmission in Florida have raised fears among women who are pregnant or want to start a family. But what are the odds of contracting the Zika virus, and what does that virus really do? Joining us now to talk about this is NPR health correspondent Rob Stein. Rob, welcome.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Nice to be here.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So now we've heard a lot about how Zika causes this terrible birth defect called microcephaly. What do we know about how much of a risk there really is or does it matter how much risk there is if something as catastrophic as microcephaly might happen?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, so the first thing I ought to say, Linda, is that with most things about Zika at this point, unfortunately there's still more questions than definitive answers. It's so new that there isn't really a lot that we know for sure. One thing we do know, though, is that it's pretty clearly been shown that Zika can cause microcephaly in babies that are born to women who get infected when they're pregnant. Now, how often that occurs, we still don't really know. But there are some estimates, and they range from anywhere from about 1 percent to about 13 percent of cases in which the woman gets infected during her first trimester. But there is also increasing evidence that the virus probably poses a risk no matter when a woman gets infected during her pregnancy. And there's probably no time when the pregnancy is completely safe.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: What kind of damage does the virus do?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: It can be really devastating. In fact, there's some new research that just came out. Some researchers published brain scan images from dozens of Brazilian babies who were born to women who got infected when they were pregnant. Whole portions of these babies and fetuses' nervous systems are just missing, like parts of their brain stem, parts of their spinal cord. And in some cases, there are babies that are born whose brains - they seem like they're OK, but after they're born, they realize that parts of their brain or the ventricles were filled up with fluid, sort of puffed up their brains so they looked normal, but, in fact, they were severely damaged.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Now, I know you spent some time with some of these babies when you were in Brazil earlier in the year. Can you tell us anything about what these babies need, how they can be cared for, what it was like to be around them?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, so, you know, some of these babies seem, you know, pretty much like normal babies. I mean, their heads looked a little small, but otherwise, they seemed like your typical baby. Other babies, it was more clear that they had severe problems. They were starting to have seizures. They were starting to have problems eating. Some of them seemed like they were developing OK, but then they stopped eating, started losing weight and started, like, losing ground developmentally. And one of the things that really strikes you is how these babies sound. They often cry way more than normal babies, and their cries can sound really disturbing in some ways. They're much more kind of pained and anguish sounding than a normal baby's cry, and it's much more difficult for the mothers or anyone else to soothe these babies.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So, Rob, we've had cases of the Zika virus appear in Florida. It's at the end of the summer. We have all of next summer to look forward to. How serious is this? How frightened should we be?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: You know, it's definitely something to be concerned about and keep an eye on, but we just don't know yet how bad it will get. And public health people tell me that, look, we've had other diseases like this. We've had dengue, chikungunya. They're spread by the same mosquitoes. They're very similar viruses. They've come into this country, and we haven't had widespread outbreaks. We've had little clusters pop up that die off very quickly, and the same thing could happen with Zika. And so it could end up being not a huge problem in this country. We just don't know yet.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: NPR health correspondent Rob Stein, thank you.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Thank you.

Writer Carl Zimmer became an "unintentional curator" of science-themed tattoos after noticing a double helix on a friend's arm. Sensing a trend, he asked his blog readers to send photos of their science tattoos. Some of those images are gathered in his new book Science Ink.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Thinking about a tattoo? Well, forget butterflies, unicorns or mom. Tattoos have gone geek. No more of those blurry anchors and pinup girls. We've got molecules, double-helix strands, mathematical equations all showing up on biceps and other places.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Need some inspiration for your science-themed tattoo? You can find ideas in a new book called "Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed," a collection of tattoos. You can check out some images on our website at sciencefriday.com and click on the SciArts tab on SCIENCE FRIDAY. Or you can share with Carl Zimmer. He's the author of a book here, "Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed." He's with me here in our New York studios. Thanks for coming in, Carl.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Oh, thanks for having me.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How did the idea of science of tattoos, all these science-related tattoos, come up?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Well, one day I just saw a scientist with a tattoo. It was a neuroscientist named Bob Data(ph) from Harvard, and he had a DNA tattoo on his shoulder, and I complimented him on it, and I said, well, I guess that makes sense because you study genes in the brain, and so it's DNA, genes, problem solved.</s>CARL ZIMMER: And he said no, no, no, you don't understand. And he proceeded to explain to me how he had encoded his wife's initials in the DNA strand on his shoulder. And suddenly I realized that there was this whole subculture out there of very, very geeky scientific tattoos.</s>CARL ZIMMER: And you actually have listed it - by chapters. You've got math, physics, chemistry, astronomy, Earth sciences, DNA.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We've got just about every branch of science covered here, I think.</s>CARL ZIMMER: And they've got just about every kind of thing in these tattoos.</s>CARL ZIMMER: I was continually surprised. I continue to be surprised. People keep emailing me these things. I probably have over 1,000 in my email inbox.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And then rich color photos of these tattoos, and some of them are mathematical equations.</s>CARL ZIMMER: That's right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Like some of them almost have a whole thesis on there, right?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Some of them literally are a thesis. You know, people tend to - when they get a Ph.D., they like to celebrate, and so if they studied, say, a particular molecule, put that molecule on your body.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And some of them are very simple, but they're sort of elusive in their meaning. There's one about a trowel, and the author writes, you know, you'd think I was a biker or a mason to have a trowel on here, he says, but I'm an archeologist. That's his tool, right?</s>CARL ZIMMER: That's right, that's right, and so any other archeologist who would look at that tattoo would know that they're the member of the same tribe. You know, this is – you know, this is something that they all use all the time.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 if you - maybe you have a tattoo you would like to talk about or have an idea for one. So you had to basically weed out all these tattoos you couldn't use then. It must have been difficult figuring out what to keep and what not to keep.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Well, I mean, at first I had no idea how many tattoos about science there are out there. I mean, I've talked to scientists for years now, and it never occurred to me that they were hiding tattoos from me.</s>CARL ZIMMER: So I took a picture of this first tattoo, this DNA tattoo from Bob Data, I put it on my blog, and I just posed a question: Does anybody else out there, any other scientist have a tattoo? And immediately I started getting flooded with these images. I started putting them on my blog, and then after a while it was clear that a book was called for.</s>CARL ZIMMER: But yeah, you know, after a while you have so many that you start to need to find a way to weed through them.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Now, I know you like history of science like I do; history of science is one of my popular topics.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is that reflected in your tattoo collection?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Oh, big time, yes. There are all sorts of historical images. So for example, Charles Darwin in his notebooks, in I believe it was 1839, drew out a tree of life. This was as his theory of evolution was coming together. And so this is really an iconic image, and I got a whole bunch of tattoos of that exact reproduction of that notebook sketch on people's bodies.</s>CARL ZIMMER: A whole bunch of evolutionary biologists have that particular tattoo. Other people have tattoos from Vasalius. There was a famous zoologist named Ernst Haeckel who drew beautiful pictures in the 1800s of all kinds of forms of life. Tons of people have Haeckel tattoos. So there's a lot of history in these pictures.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Talking with Carl Zimmer, author of "Science Ink." Our number, 1-800-989-8255. Ken in Clarkesville, Tennessee. Hi, Ken, welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. Hi, Ken. Yes, go ahead.</s>KEN: OK, I just wanted to give out my idea for a tattoo. They were giving free – well, not free tattoos, but before Christmas they were giving out tattoos to people who brought in toys. And that sort of made me think about it, and my idea for a tattoo is Euler's (unintelligible) atomic equation.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Euler's equation.</s>KEN: It's E raised to the power of I times pi plus one equals zero.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, this is - you saw - sometimes called Euler's identity. It's a beautiful, short little equation. And guess what? There are a whole bunch of people out there with that tattoo. I think I have three or four of those in the book. It's such a beautiful equation. It's so short and yet so powerful.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, Ken, thanks for - are you going to get one, Ken?</s>KEN: Maybe next Christmas.</s>KEN: If they still have that deal going.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, thanks for calling. Of course, Carl, your next book could be the science of how you get rid of tattoos.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Don't you think with all these people getting tattoos that there's going to be a point where it's not a fad anymore, and people are going to be stuck? But they're so beautiful.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Well, this is sort of a self-selected group of people who are very proud of their tattoos who send them to me. I doubt that any of these people are going to get them taken off. And in fact there are a few, you know, tenured professors, some with gray beards, who are in the book as well. You know, so you can survive to old age as a scientist and keep your tattoo intact.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Bill in Adrian, Michigan. Hi, Bill.</s>BILL: Hi, I'm a physician, and during my years in medicine a lot of my fellow colleagues have gotten tattoos of defibrillator paddles with a line through them to indicate that they would not want advanced life support. You know, a lot of us having been in medicine long enough and seeing the bad outcomes that happen and how, you know, how people stay on ventilators for long periods of times, we don't want that.</s>BILL: So people will get a tattoo right there on their chest where they would put the paddle, telling people don't do that. So I just wanted to share that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Sort of a permanent DNR.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Tattoo as operating instructions.</s>BILL: ...DNR right there.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, thanks for that hint. 1-800-989-8255. Let's - lots of people with ideas. Let's go to Brian in Missoula, Montana. Hi, Brian.</s>BRIAN: Hi, how's it going?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Fine, how are you?</s>BRIAN: I'm pretty good. I had a quick question about fractal tattoos.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: OK, go ahead.</s>BRIAN: I just wanted to see if he saw any when he did the research for his book and, say, how many levels of complexity you could go to, if he's ever seen, say, a Julia set to three levels of complexity or anything of that type.</s>CARL ZIMMER: The answer is yes. So fractals are these beautiful geometrical shapes that have - are sort of infinitely rugged, and the more you zoom in on them, the more detail you see on them. And so yes, there's this particular fractal called the Julia set. I have Julia sets sent to me.</s>CARL ZIMMER: The question I always have is, you know, how detailed of a tattoo can you get if something is infinitively detailed? It might be a tricky thing for a tattoo. But, you know, some of these tattoos are so extraordinarily detailed that I suppose you could do it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, thanks for calling. In fact, I'm looking at one now called Mass Extinctions. It's the whole back of somebody.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, so 65 million years ago, an asteroid slams into Earth, the dinosaurs become extinct, and so someone decided to dedicate his entire back to that cataclysmic event. And so there you go.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And also a bird-like dinosaur's head, really gorgeous tattoos.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, yeah, a lot of people were really drawn to, say, Archaeopteryx, that classic bird-like dinosaur. And, you know, there's actually a real gorgeous dinosaur called Deinonychus, maybe one of the most beautiful tattoos in the book. Unfortunately, it's kind of reptilian scales on it.</s>CARL ZIMMER: We know now that Deinonychus had feathers on it. So he's going to have to go in and re-inked, I think.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is like asking, right, the question about which child is your favorite. But I'm sure you've been asked which is your favorite tattoo, and then you probably don't have a favorite, or maybe you do.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, I page through trying to pick them, and I say, oh, I like that one; no, I like that one. I think in general I like the ones that tell you a lot about the scientist, him or herself. And some of them are funny, but some of them are quite poignant, actually.</s>CARL ZIMMER: So just to give you one example, there's a neuroscientist named Lindsey Reese(ph) who has a neuron on her foot. Now, that might seem obvious to you, but there's a deeper story there. It's a particular kind of neuron that we use to send messages to our body to move our bodies around. That's the kind of neuron that dies when people get Lou Gehrig's disease.</s>CARL ZIMMER: So this woman's father actually died of Lou Gehrig's when she was 18, and that's what made her decide to become a neuroscientist. So this tattoo is really about her loss, her life and her science all in one.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I have to ask this question because I know people have asked me: Are there tattoos or places on the body you could not put in your book that were tattooed?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Oh, um, yeah, yeah. There were a few where I just said, well, this is not going in the book, you know, certain full-body tattoos, for example. Like thanks but...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Full-body tattoos?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Oh yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And scientists. Scientists. Do you have to be a scientist to send in stuff, or you had non-scientists sending in tattoos?</s>CARL ZIMMER: I had all sorts of people sending in tattoos. Most of the book - tattoos in the book happen to be from scientists, but there are some non-scientists as well. But no, I've had full-body tattoos from scientists sent to me.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Are you going to be collecting any more? You must have a lot more you could out. Could you put a second volume out?</s>CARL ZIMMER: At the rate...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Especially after hear people hear today?</s>CARL ZIMMER: At the rate things are going, you could definitely come out with a second volume.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And could you think of - can you - is there a class of tattoos you're looking for? Or is there a category that is underrepresented that you think that you'd like...</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, I think I need more geology. There are a few really cool ones. Like there's a seismograph of the San Francisco earthquake.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: No kidding?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, it's really cool. And there are a couple other, but there aren't enough. I need more geology, I think.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: More geology. Maybe somebody's got the Grand Canyon.</s>CARL ZIMMER: They might, they might, they might. What I don't need, what I definitely do not need are tattoos of the number pi. Lots of people do that, and God bless them, but I don't need any more pictures in my email box of pi. Like great, OK, pi, let's move on.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But has anybody actually - you're talking about the symbol, or are you talking about the number that's been taken out to 100 digits or something like that?</s>CARL ZIMMER: Well, that's pretty cool. Actually, somebody in the book has his whole arm is filled up with numbers in pi. That shows dedication.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's right. And I guess the tattoo artists now are getting educated too about - once they write these things on the...</s>CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, well one thing that scientists tend to tell me is that they come in to these tattoo parlors, and they get into these long conversations. I mean, you know, when you decide that you are going to have, you know, DNA splayed across your back, you're going to be spending a lot of time with the DNA - I'm sorry, a tattoo artist.</s>CARL ZIMMER: And they get to talking, and they have these long conversations about science, and the tattoo artists that I've spoken to, they really get into it when this happens.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Become double-helix experts. Thank you, Carl.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: It's "Science Ink" by Carl Zimmer, forward by Mary Roach, and it's tattoos of the science obsessed - great, great picture book and great colors, and maybe you'll get some ideas, and maybe you'll send Carl an idea for his volume two. Thanks again.</s>CARL ZIMMER: Thank you, Ira.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to switch gears and talk about surgery with a surgeon who's written a book called "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated: Life Behind the OR Doors." What happens when you're out? You're in the surgery room and you're out, you can't see what's happening. He's going to tell us. So stay with us. We'll be right back.

Stanford professor Manu Prakash explains how bubbles can be used as bits to make a computer. By directing the bubbles through etched pathways, they act like electrons traveling through circuits. In this system, however, the computer is powered by gravity and the bubble bits can carry things inside of them as they compute.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Flora Lichtman is here with a Video Pick of the Week. And it's something about an everyday object?</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: An everyday item. The Video Pick of the Week this week is about - oh, that was really bad.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: I tried to do a sound effect. Oh, live radio. Sorry. That was a very weak...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You need a fresh bottle.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: I did shake it up before I came in. All right, anyway. Sorry. Forget it. Let's reverse.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: A live - that's a - yeah.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It's about bubbles.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Want me to (makes noise)?</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: There.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: There you go.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: We don't need this bottle of seltzer, this defective bottle of seltzer. OK.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So the Video Pick this week is about bubbles being used for something that really surprised me. I'll never look at seltzer the same way. This guy, Manu Prakash at Stanford, says that you can use bubbles to make a computer.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: A computer out of bubbles.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: A computer of bubbles.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Bubbles computing.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Bubbles can do computations...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: ...I learned. This is like a real, make-your-hair-hurt kind of subject for me, anyway.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It took a lot of deep thinking to wrap my head around it. But here's how Manu walked me through it, so hopefully we can explain it. He says that the basic concept is this: To do any kind of computation - and Richard - and Feynman has talked about this, and he explained this to me, too, that you need a physical something...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...to represent computation, so chalk on a chalkboard.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Fingers...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. Fingers...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...digits.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: That's the one I - we can use.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's right.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And in computers, it's usually - it's electrons running through wires, right?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So if you take it - you could take an analog to that and say: Bubbles going through tubes could be used the same that electrons are use for computations in computers.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And the critical point here is that bubbles interact with each other through the environment. You need this to make - so it's not just bubbles going down a tube. But if two bubbles are near each other, their behavior changes. In other words, one bubble goes through a tube, and they're all going to go down the right path, let's say.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: They're making a decision of that.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: They make a decision when another bubble is present.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: They go down the other path. And with that, you can make this AND-OR and NOT gate.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Computer logic.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: The bubbles make that decision.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Very interesting. Talking about bubbles on SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. And your video, which you made, shows the actual computer with the tiny, little bubbles running through these little pipes...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: These little circuits.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Circuits.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, these tiny, little tubes.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so if, like I guessed, because we live in the world of binary, of ones and zeroes, if you have a bubble, that's a one.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Correct.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: If you don't have a bubble...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: That is a zero.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Huh.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So you can make these, sort of, basic building blocks of computers is what this researcher showed. And he actually has videos of these adorable little bubbles going through different tubes...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And I think...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: ...a ring oscillator, if that means anything to you. You can see bubbles doing that and an AND gates, and stuff like that. So you can actually watch them going through.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: On our Video Pick of the Week up on our website, the bubble computer. It's fascinating to watch the bubbles go through these little tubes. And they're all spaced out quite evenly in the tubes. And they go through little mazes and touch each other and push each other around, and...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And you might be thinking, you know, well, why? Bubbles, obviously, are a lot slower than electrons.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: A little bit.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So you're not going to be doing like your iPhone, you know, Yelping from your bubble computer. And they're really big compared to electrons, but they have this added advantage that electrons don't have. They're, like, little, teeny-tiny test tubes. They can carry things with them. So the thing that excites Manu Prakash about his work is that you could actually have them physically transport things while they're doing a computation - so create as you compute. It's like a two-for-one deal.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow. Well, that's kind of interesting. And not only is that a - not only is the concept terrific, but the video, our Pick of the Week is beautifully shot with the bubbles. I mean, you have some great photos of - you know, you look at the bubbles on - was it a - is it a whisky shot glass that you have there or something?</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It's a little glass.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And the bubbles - because you're using a - so closed up, watch them jump around.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It's one of my favorites, yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You know, I love listening to it, but I was so distracted by just the bubbles jumping around on the glass.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. It is really beautiful. I - looking at bubbles through a macro lens, I felt like I could have done this for hours. They, like, stick to the glass.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And they went - and they move very quickly when they explode. So it is fun to watch. It was fun to shoot, too.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: It's - maybe - we should do more of these tiny, little macros.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. If you have suggestions for tiny things you'd like to see - we were talking about maybe how the eye responds to when you turn the light on and off or...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You were saying there's something in your house that you wanted to macro.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: My - when I water my orchids, I watched the water. Actually, a big bubble, a drop, will be on the roots, and I can watch it shrink over real time as the root sucks in the water, you know?</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Well, that sounds like one for next week.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So maybe - you were talking about maybe cream and coffee swirling, there's a certain pattern that takes.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, yeah. I think, actually, there's research on that. I hope to look into that. But, yeah, I think the macro lens - I never get bored with that kind of stuff.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And there's bubbles - bubbles and beer, we've done stories on Guinness. It actually creates - the Guinness stout creates a whole, actually, convection current of bubbles going up and down.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. Those bubbles go down.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yes.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Richard Saracen, I think he was on our show years ago talking about - he actually studied this and made films out of it. So...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You know, this is sort of what I love. And also for this video this week, Manu Prakash said that he got this idea to make this bubble computer when he was in the subway. So he's sitting in the subway, and he's looking at the subway map - and you'll see if you look at the video - it looks very similar to the circuits he made.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right. I thought about that.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: He thought, you know, hey, he's studying fluids. He's at MIT. And he thought, hmm, I wonder if you could do this. So, you know, inspiration is everywhere.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And as they say in Great Britain, it's the tube, right, which is...</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It's the tube. Very good.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...it's the tube, right? It's the tube, which is what he made with his bubbles, the tube.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. Absolutely.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you, Flora.</s>FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Thanks, Ira.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Our Video of the Week up there in our website, bubbles. It's really cute. If you just want to watch the bubbles, for nothing else, it's just a great watch on our website, at sciencefriday.com.

The nation celebrates the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday. As millions honor his legacy with a national day of service, we take a moment to reflect on his legacy with the original "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered on August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. Events are planned in cities across the country on this holiday to mark the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. This morning, riders boarded the Freedom Train into San Francisco to commemorate this historic march in 1965 from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery. In Atlanta, where King was born, cellist Yo-Yo Ma is scheduled to perform at Morehouse College, King's alma mater. Later tonight, President Obama and the first lady are expected at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., for the annual Let Freedom Ring celebration.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Many other's visited the new King memorial on the National Mall, and millions around the country took part in a national day of service. Every year on this program, we return to the march on Washington and probably King's most famous speech. Here's Martin Luther King Jr., August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. And five score years ago, a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: My Lord.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: JR.: One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later...</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: My Lord.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: JR.: ...the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense, we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yeah.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: JR.: ...they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds. But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: My Lord. Sure enough.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: JR.: We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 1963 is not an end but a beginning. And those who hoped that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: The marvelous new militancy, which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating for whites only. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering, continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our Northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together knowing that we will be free one day.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: And this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning: my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that, let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.</s>But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children - black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics - will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Martin Luther King Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizen's United ruling loosened campaign finance restrictions, enabling corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. As a result, super PACs — political action committees — can solicit large corporate contributions and produce a plethora of attack ad campaigns. Ted Koppel, special correspondent for NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams Cleta Mitchell, campaign finance attorney

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. In the past, changes in campaign finance laws yielded slightly different presidential elections every four years, but 2012 is the first since the Supreme Court decision transformed the playing field.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Political donations are now considered free speech. Donations to candidates are still limited, but corporations and unions can give as much as they like to so-called super PACs, which unleashed blizzards of attack ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and now in South Carolina.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Critics worry that we've crossed a threshold into an ever nastier political climate. Proponents argue that more ads allow voters to make more informed choices. If you've donated to a super PAC, call and tell us why. Our phone number is 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Go to npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, Thomas Pickering joins us on the Opinion Page to argue the case for diplomacy with Iran, but first Ted Koppel joins us from our bureau in New York. He's a commentator for NPR News and a special correspondent for MSNBC's "Rock Center with Brian Williams," which airs his piece on super PACs tonight. And Ted, welcome back.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Actually, it's not MSNBC, it's plain old NBC.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I was just looking at that. Thanks very much for the correction.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Nice to be with you, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And is it just the number of ads that's different this year?</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Well, certainly volume is huge, but you just heard at the top of the news Governor Huntsman bemoaning the fact that things have gotten so nasty and that they're going to get even nastier. I must tell you if you think things are bad now, just wait until the general election. Wait until the Democrats and the Republicans start unleashing these quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars that will be put to work in large measure putting out negative ads.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I have to say, Ted, this is not the first time we've seen negative advertising. As the old expression goes, politics ain't beanbag, negative ads are part of the game.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Negative ads are part of the game, but I think what you have these days is if, in the old days you could say that candidates were responsible, remember how a candidate would say at the end of each ad I'm Ted Koppel and I'm responsible for this message, you're not hearing that anymore because the fact of the matter is the campaigns - while the campaigns are still putting out ads, and you'll still hear a candidate say that, in South Carolina now, for example, at a rate exceeding two to one, it is the super PACs that are putting out these messages.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And if in the old days you could say that candidates bore some responsibility, now we live in an era of irresponsibility because not only are the candidates not responsible, they can take the position that they are not permitted under the law to communicate directly with the super PACs that are supporting them.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And so they can stand back and watch as the super PACs quite literally mug the other candidate, and it's going to lead - it's going to reach a level of nastiness, Neal, that I think we haven't seen in many, many years.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Just a clarification, at the top of the show we played a clip of tape of Mitt Romney on MSNBC - that one was correct - but he was responding to Newt Gingrich's protest: Mr. Romney, stop these ads, take them off the air, it's just negative advertising. He could say, with I guess plausible deniability, I have no control over this super PAC.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: He could, and the irony is that of course now Newt Romney several days ago got a donation...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Newt Gingrich.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Newt Gingrich, I'm sorry - Newt Romney is - that's not likely to happen. Newt Gingrich got a donation of $5 million from a man by the name of Sheldon Adelson, who is a casino owner in Las Vegas and apparently has enough money that giving $5 million is no big deal to him.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: But with that $5 million, Gingrich was able to start striking back in South Carolina. And Gingrich wasn't, his super PAC was.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: His super PAC, as you're about to clarify that.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Red, White and Blue. Yes, Red, White and Blue struck back by purchasing a documentary that had been done, interestingly enough, by a filmmaker on spec. He made the video in anticipation of selling it to some political adversary to Mitt Romney. And in fact, it was Newt Gingrich's super PAC that purchased it and is now playing segments of it.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And newspaper reporters who have specialized in this kind of thing have analyzed it. The Washington Post gave it a four Pinocchio, which is their highest, or lowest depending on how you choose to look at it, rating for honesty. And Newt Gingrich came out and said look, I think this is terrible, and I think they ought to correct all the errors, and if they can't correct all the errors, they ought to take it off the air.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: As best I can determine, the ads are still on the air because the super PACs are taking the position that Newt Romney can't communicate with us directly, and we're not listening to what he says on TV.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You did it again, Ted: Newt Gingrich.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Newt Gingrich.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Easily done. There is something else to point out: Yes, this is a new world, super PACs are new, 527s it was not too long ago and swift-boating, I think, well, what's the difference between what we're seeing and those kinds of ads that, you'll forgive me, did a lot to scupper the campaign of John Kerry?</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Yes, you're absolutely right. Technically speaking, there is a distinction, and that is in those days you had to - they were called issue ads. You had to have an issue. The issue in this case was whether or not Senator Kerry, while he was serving as a commander of a swift boat in Vietnam, had literally participated in the acts of bravery for which he won the Silver Star. That was the issue.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: The fact that undermining that story also undermined his campaign was regarded, at least under the law, as being a technicality. A, these days you can go after the other candidate, and you can do it directly; B, it's a question of volume.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: I spoke to a man who gave a little bit more than a million dollars to Senator Santorum's super PAC, and again forgive me if I say Senator Santorum's super PAC, he doesn't own it, he doesn't control it, but it is a super PAC that supports him.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: So this man, Mr. Weiss(ph), gave over a million dollars, and when I asked him about it, he said well, there's, you know, there's a great convenience factor. In the old days, he said, what we used to do, what we used to have to do, is I'd invite seven or eight people and ask each of them to invite seven or eight people, and each of them would then come, we'd have a draw, he said, like Dick Cheney, and we'd serve whiskey and peanuts, and each person could donate only $2,500.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Now that's an interesting point, he said. So it wasn't very easy to raise huge sums of money. He, independently now, has been able to give over a million dollars. What's the point? Theoretically, limiting the donation of each individual to $2,500 during the primaries and $2,500 during a general election was supposed to limit corruption in politics.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: If indeed - and that's still the case. You can't give more than $2,500 to a candidate. But you can now give a million, five million, 10 million. It is anticipated that the Romney super PAC will have about $300 to $350 million in play before this election is over. That's something of a whole new dimension.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: They say the Obama super PAC will have a billion. The president denies it, but we'll be up in those large numbers in any case. But we want to get some...</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: It's actually Republicans who are saying that. I haven't heard any Democrats saying that the president's going to have a super PAC, but believe me, he'll have hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of those super PACs, and the super PACs almost by definition tend to go negative.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We want to hear from you about how these super PACs are changing the political climate, if they are, and we'd like to hear especially from those of you who have made a contribution to one, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. We'll start with Nicole(ph), an Nicole's on the line with us from San Antonio.</s>NICOLE: Hi, I teach advertising in one of my classes, and I take issue with an idea presented at the top of the show, which was that more advertising leads to a more informed electorate, potentially. I think that specifically the reason I have not donated to a super PAC, and I am a political - I do contribute, but not to super PACs because I don't feel like my money is going to go to making the audience more informed, I feel like it's going to go to more misinformation and propaganda and a less informed electorate.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, for example, in South Carolina, the super PAC aligned with Newt Gingrich is running ads that try to inform the voters of South Carolina about Mr. Romney's past as an executive with Bain, a venture capital firm, and whether - it portrays that very negatively, but nevertheless, maybe a lot of voters didn't know that.</s>NICOLE: Sure, and I think that there is definitely a place for advertising to exist. I just don't think that more advertising always means more information. Sometimes it just means more screaming.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ted Koppel, you've probably seen a lot of these ads.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Yeah, and in fact, I raised the issue, we went to an advertising agency here in New York and raised the issue with the lady who was the CEO of that ad, and the question that we put to her was this: Why is it that products don't engage in negative advertising? Why is it that products don't go after each other with the same vehemence that politicians do?</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And she had an interesting response. Number one, she said, the products, you know, are around for a very long time, and therefore what you try to do is you try to build up good feelings in the public about the product, and you don't want to get engaged in the sort of negative mudslinging.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Alternatively, she pointed out that politics tend to be, these elections tend to be short-term operations, just for a few months, and the object is to get to the White House. Secondly, she said, the FTC, that is the Federal Trade Commission, is far more demanding that you tell the truth in your ads for a loaf of bread than the Federal Election Commission is with regard to the ads because political advertising is covered under the First Amendment, therefore you can say almost anything you want in these super PAC ads.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And I totally agree with the caller that in point of fact, we're not getting information, we're getting bile and vitriol.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nicole, thanks very much for the call, appreciate it.</s>NICOLE: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with NPR commentator Ted Koppel about the rise of super PACs. If you've donated to one, call and tell us why, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. When we return, we'll speak with Cleta Mitchell, the campaign finance lawyer who represents Republican candidates and parties. Her clients include one of the super PACs that supports Texas Governor Rick Perry. So we'll hear the other side of the argument. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. Last week, Senator John McCain blasted the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, calling it the worst decision in last 50 years and blamed it for the ad wars we're seeing now. That Supreme Court decision struck down large portions of the McCain-Feingold law of 2002, which established contribution limits, now out the window for corporations and unions who want to donate to super PACs.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you've made a donation to a super PAC, we'd like to know why. We'd also like to hear from those of you to think about - to ask us about how super PACs are changing the political climate, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. NPR commentator Ted Koppel is with us today, and joining us now is Cleta Mitchell, a longtime campaign finance attorney. She worked on a team opposing the McCain-Feingold law.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And her current clients include the Make Us Great Again super PAC, which is aligned with Texas Governor Rick Perry. And Cleta Mitchell joins us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much for coming in on the holiday.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Thank you for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so is this entirely negative, terrible things, or is this free speech?</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, it is free speech, and the Supreme Court, that's not new. The Supreme Court said in January of 1976, in the Buckley vs. Valeo decision, that the right of citizens to make independent expenditures and for campaigns to spend money is protected under the First Amendment, that money is speech.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, they considerably expanded it in Citizens United.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, that's actually not true. I mean, what happened was that there had been intervening decisions, one in 1979, in which the Supreme Court, I think, had gotten it wrong in a decision saying that a corporation could not - could be precluded under state law from making independent expenditures.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: And from that came several other decisions, including the decision in the Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, in the McConnell decision, relying on that 1979 case. And essentially what happened was that with a case in 2004 involving the Wisconsin right-to-life organization, the Supreme Court said, well, actually as applied - the facts applied to this case, you know, gee, it is unconstitutional to say that this citizens group can't make independent expenditures and electionary communications just before an election.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: And then when Citizens United came along a couple years later, the Supreme Court said, now, wait a minute, we need to go back and look at our - that 1979 decision. And what the Supreme Court said was that that was the anomaly, and it basically went back to the decision in 1976.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: So I mean, I listen to all of this debate and argument. I listened to Ted Koppel, who frankly is a household word, name - his name is a household word because, because he has spent his career being able to say what he wants on - in a system where a corporation, ABC News and now NBC, is able to spend unlimited amounts promoting Ted Koppel's ideas.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: This show we're on right now, NPR is owned and operated by a corporation, and what the Supreme Court said was that for Congress to say that media corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts saying whatever they want or their hosts and their commentators can say whatever they want, but other corporations are not allowed to make similar kinds of expenditures is tantamount to Congress granting a speech license, which the First Amendment doesn't allow.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ted Koppel, free speech?</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Free speech indeed. I know that Ms. Mitchell is aware of the fact that it's not quite as simple as she portrays it. We are obliged, at least I'm obliged, as a journalist, and have tried to abide by that over the years, to include something that is not required under the Citizens United ruling, and that is accuracy.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: I am responsible for what I say on the air. If for some reason I say something that is inaccurate, A) I can be sued, and B) I'd probably lose my job. And I must tell you that those who worked for me at ABC and at "Nightline" over the years, they might get one pass, they wouldn't get two.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: The fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between journalism, at least as it used to be practiced in this country, and this ruling, and I think Ms. Mitchell knows it.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, let me just - look, I do this for a living. I deal in these nuances and these regulations all the time, all day every day, and let me just tell you that candidate speech is protected from any kind of interference in its content. But all of these super PACs, any independent organization other than a candidate ad, any communication is subject to the exact same standards of advertising as for an aspirin commercial.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Who's going to sue them?</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, the fact...</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: If they are called, if one of these super PACs is called before the Federal Elections Commission, there will be a hearing if you can get the six-person body, which usually splits three-three, as you know, if they can get this six-person body to actually agree to have a hearing, the worst thing that's going to happen to anyone, the worst thing that has happened over the past few years, is a fine.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And the fine might be as much as, the highest it's been in recent years, has been $100,000.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: That's not true. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, your commitment to accuracy is not true. The Media Fund paid a $580,000 fine.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You can say he's inaccurate, not his commitment to accuracy, but go ahead.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: If you will at least allow me to quote my source, it was one of the commissioners of the FEC whom you will see on NBC tonight at 10:00, making precisely that statement, that the largest fine that has been collected by the FEC in recent years has been $100,000.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, that's not true.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And when you are - and when you are in fact collecting tens of millions of dollars, that's considered to be the price of doing business.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll accept that we need to disagree on this point...</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, you know, the fact is that the Media Fund, for example, in 2004 raised and spent $60 million; 90 percent of that was from labor unions and corporations and donors over $5,000. They were supporting John Kerry, and they paid a fine of $580,000. Do I think that they calculated and said, yes, that's just a cost of doing business? Yes.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: But let me go back to this, because I think it's important that you do have your facts correct, and they are not correct. For instance, the TV stations are responsible for monitoring and taking down inaccurate ads by organizations such as super PACs, but I've spent a fair amount of time the last several years trying to get inaccurate ads taken off the air and demonstrating, with documentation, inaccuracies, because the law is that the station - a broadcast licensee has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of such advertising.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Since the economy tanked, you can't get an ad off the air, because they need the money. But you would - those ads, the ad makers, those who pay for the ads and the station are all - they could be sued for libel. But the FEC doesn't monitor this. This is not an FEC issue. It is an FCC issue.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: And the FCC, if anything, is an even weaker organization than the FEC. But let's...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in on the conversation here. This is TALK OF THE NATION, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Let's go next to Cathy(ph), Cathy with us from St. Clair Shores in Michigan.</s>CATHY: Hi.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.</s>CATHY: Yesterday I made my second donation to Stephen Colbert's super PAC.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK.</s>CATHY: And I'd appreciate your comments about Mr. Colbert's use of the super PAC to educate the public.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That is another technique. This is, of course, the faux newscaster from the Comedy Central channel who is running a mock campaign, I guess, or semi-mock campaign in South Carolina and using that campaign as an educational tool. Ted, have you seen his contributions here?</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: I've not only seen them, I have an interview that runs separately on "Rock Center" tonight with Stephen on the subject. And I must give him a shout-out at this particular point because I think he has done more through his satire of underscoring and educating the American public on the ludicrous nature of these super PACs.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: I mean, as you probably know, or as many of your listeners have probably heard, he has - he has collected hundreds - I mean, I don't know how many thousands of donations, and he won't tell me how much money he has collected because, as he correctly points out, he doesn't have to yet, but he now has handed over control of his super PAC to his friend Jon Stewart so that he can run for president of South Carolina, at least he has an exploratory commission in that direction.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: But I think Colbert's mockery of what can be done - and he actually applied for and got permission to form his own super PAC, has been receiving donations for that super PAC, has done ads on the air, he did one ad in fact making fun of Ms. Mitchell's client, Governor Perry, in which he asked voters, I guess in Iowa, to vote for, what, Governor Perry with an A? There's nothing that anybody could do about it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And by the way, we have checked, and there was a $580,000 fine imposed against the Media Fund in the Kerry campaign. So that is accurate. And so it's a lot more than $100,000, Ted.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Well, I stand corrected then, but you will still see the same commissioner making that statement tonight.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: As - Cleta Mitchell, the other claim, that these groups are independent, it's clear when you nominate the - when the person who ran, for example, Governor Romney's campaign four years ago, is the head of a super PAC, does any - there is no outright coordination. But there's no - it's clear to everybody that this super PAC is working for Mitt Romney.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, that's what they - I'm sure that's what they say in their statement of organization filed with the FEC. You have to say what the purpose of any political committee is when you form it. And that's, I'm sure, exactly what they say, that they're supporting the presidential nomination of Mitt Romney.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And wink, wink, nod, nod.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, not wink, wink, nod, nod.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: No. Well, except that these groups run negative ads against the other side, the guy's opponents.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Or they run positive ads in support of their candidate.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: For the most part, they have thus been - thus far been negative ads overwhelmingly. And the campaign is, therefore, able to run commercials, ads, saying - showing the candidate kissing baby and shaking hands.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, I don't know that that's true, and I think it would be important that that'd be analyzed. And look, I'll tell you who taught us how to do all of this, was George Soros and Ellen Malcolm and the people in 2004 who went out and formed America Coming Together and the Media Fund and got $20 million from George Soros for Americans Coming Together. They raised and spent $200 million in 2004, all independent of the Kerry campaign. The Media Fund raised and spent $60 million. You had unions giving money, which was illegal we thought at that time. And so I didn't hear all of this outrage about that. I didn't hear the liberal media and Ted Koppel. I looked this morning, Mr. Koppel, and I didn't see any outrage on your part when George Soros called George Bush a Nazi.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: I mean, the fact of the matter is, we - as you said at the outset, Neal, politics ain't bean bag. And the reason people do negative ads is because they work. And, you know, I don't know if this segment is about negative ads. That's a subject. I don't know if it's about super PACs. I don't know if it's about Citizens United, because you're throwing all of this into a stew pot. Basically, what I hear people is saying, what I hear the media is saying is since Citizens United and conservative donors basically having sat out 2006 and 2008, who got back into the ballgame in 2010 and are back in the ballgame in 2012, that now there's outrage. There was no outrage that I saw in 2006 and 2008, or really in 2004.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about super PACs. Our guest - you just heard Cleta Mitchell, who's a campaign finance lawyer. Her clients include one of the super PACs that supports Texas Governor Rick Perry, Make Us Great Again. Also with us, NPR commentator Ted Koppel, whose piece on super PACs airs tonight on NBC's "Rock Center with Brian Williams." You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And Ted, I heard you wanting to get back in there.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Well, I just wanted to respond. I think you're being a little too modest in terms of conservative contributions to all of this. Karl Rove, I think, set the tone long ago. And, in fact, Carl Forte(ph), the man who is now one of those heading up the Mitt Romney super PAC, was responsible, among others, for the Willie Horton ad against Dukakis, which as I recall, that campaign was back, what, in the late '80s? So this has been going on for a very, very long time. But if the point you want to raise is that liberal super PACs are going to be just as nasty as conservative super PACs, I concede the point. My objection is to the super PACs, not to what is being said specifically by anyone of the ads.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Bob. Bob is with us on the line from Tucson.</s>BOB: Yeah. I quit giving because of the - mainly because of the negative issue of the nature of the ads that were coming out from these super PACs. And I've also kind of questioned the - if there's any lasting economic value or any lasting contribution to the economy by the super PACs.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think owners of television and radio stations would be very pleased with the economic impact.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: I was going to say, I just talked to the general manager of five radio stations down in South Carolina. They are happy as clams. But one of the incidental things that's happened because of the super PACs is the super PAC money is driving out the campaign money. And ironically - and I would like to hear Ms. Mitchell on this point - every one of the candidates that I have spoken to objects to the super PACs, wishes the super PACs could go away, wishes Citizens United could be reversed, wishes that money could be made available in greater quantities to the campaigns directly so that the candidates could be held responsible for what is put out in their name.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: Well, I agree with that. I mean, the fact of the matter is, I - I wrote a study. I worked on a study in 2001, which was published - we published it in March 2001, called "Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform?" And it traced the sources of the money, big money, behind the campaign finance reform movement. And the whole point of that was to demonstrate that there was an agenda by those promoting campaign finance reform, and in particular McCain-Feingold. Chapter seven of that study was a look ahead to see what will happen if McCain-Feingold becomes law. And would you like to know the title of that chapter was?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, please.</s>CLETA MITCHELL: "OK, Fine, Let George Soros Replace the DNC" - that was the title. Because what has happened is absolutely predictable. When you put the limits on the amount of money that could be given to the party committees and, you know, and when you have aggregate limits which limit your ability, a wealthy person's ability to contribute to as many candidates as possible, you're going to drive the money out. It isn't Citizens United that has caused this. It is the law itself driving money out of the party committees, out of the candidate coffers and to outside groups. You want to change all that? You want to drive it back to candidates and parties? There's an easy way to do that: repeal McCain-Feingold.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Cleta Mitchell, thanks very much for your time today. As we mentioned, her clients include one of the super PACs that supports Texas Governor Rick Perry, Make Us Great Again. She joined us here in Studio 3A. Ted Koppel is with us from our bureau in New York, NPR commentator, and also tonight a special correspondent for NBC's "Rock Center with Brian Williams," and broadcasts a piece tonight on super PACs. Ted, as always, thanks very much.</s>TED KOPPEL, BYLINE: Thank you, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: When we get back, Ambassador Thomas Pickering joins us to defend what he admits is the slow, elusive diplomatic process with Iran. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Rachel Martin speaks to Secretary Gregg Marcantel about reforming the New Mexico state penitentiary system. He appears on season 2 on A&E's "Behind Bars."

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Season 2 of the A&E series "Behind Bars" began last week. This time, we get a look at the challenges corrections officers face policing a prison that has the dubious distinction of being the site of the bloodiest prison riot in American history.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It's most dangerous spot. Real - here amongst real killers - you know what I'm saying? Psychos.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's the Penitentiary of New Mexico. And the man in charge is the secretary of corrections in that state, Gregg Marcantel. He's a Marine Corps veteran and a 30-year beat cop, but is fast becoming known and respected for his unorthodox approach towards reforming the state's prison system. Secretary Marcantel, thank you so much for being with us.</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: Thank you for having me. What a blessing to be here.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How do you feel about the notoriety that comes from a TV show like this? Because they're clearly looking for a dramatic story. They have picked your prisons because it's dangerous. Is that the kind of publicity that is complicated in some ways?</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: You know, the reality is - and you mentioned it in the introduction - is that over 30-some-odd years ago, we had what still stands as one of the most bloodiest prison riot in American history. We wanted to make sure that never happened again. But what can happen if you're not careful is that your single view of success can be avoiding another riot. And your expectations of inmates can, over the decades, be simply that you expect them to behave a certain way. You expect them to be violent.</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: Part of what I think you have to do to reform what we do behind prison walls is have the courage to set new expectations and hold those inmates accountable for pro-social prison environments instead of pro-criminal environments. The people that are placed in our prisons are going to return to our communities. They're going to join us in the grocery lines, with our families in the movie lines. They're either going to come back better or worse.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So how do you go about getting your hands around that problem? I mean, people have been talking about this for generations, the need to come up with different programs to rehabilitate inmates and to reduce the recidivism rate. What are you doing that's different?</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: There were some inmates that have got some very troubled, very violent histories, so the change had to be more baby steps. And so we designed a cognitive behavioral course. And the idea was - is that if you complete this, we will then let you take the next small step. So as we move forward, these folks graduated into a purposefully designed cake decorating course. So now we have guys that are so tattooed on their face some of them you can't even see much of their real face, and they're now working together decorating cakes. You know, there's progress. What we've got to do is we've got to embrace the reality that is our responsibility to create atmosphere and create circumstances for people to make choices.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I read that you decided to put yourself in solitary confinement. What was it like?</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: I started off sort of from the posture of what it looks like for those people that we can't put them into general population 'cause they're too dangerous. But they still get rights. I had an iPod to listen to. I had all of those things. So - and then halfway into it, I wanted to be transitioned into a disciplinary setting that is part of a behavior modification plan. And I was reduced to a pen, paper and a bible. Even within the short span of three days, I began to run out of things to think about and I then began counting cracks on the wall (laughter). You know, your mind goes everywhere. I'm not going to claim that three days in an environment like that taught me the whole world, but it got me up close and personal and allowed me to make better judgments from a policy perspective.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: A big part of your job is thinking about how corrections officers do the work that they do. It's stressful. In the first episode of the A&E show, we hear from a young correctional officer named D'Angelo, and this is moments after he's gotten into a fight with an inmate. We've got that clip. Let's hear that now.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: D'ANGELO CHAPARRO: The academy, they told us how to handle use of force. When you're actually in a confrontation with an inmate where your blood is flowing and your adrenaline's pumping, it's kind of hard to do exactly by the book. Since I'm from, like, a wrestling background, it's kind of easier for me to put hands on people. In the heat of the moment, you just kind of revert to what you know.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It is a dark, stressful situation that these correctional officers are placed in on a day-to-day basis. How do you train these people in a way that helps you get to your goal about raising the expectations of inmates?</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: You chose the most brilliant example in D'Angelo. It takes a very unique human being. They have to be ready and willing at the drop of a dime to visit violence if it comes their way. They have to have attention to detail and be very aware of their environment at any given moment. They have to also be complete enough human beings to invest their time and talent every day into other human beings that most of the world has the luxury of simply throwing away.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's a big leap of faith, isn't it?</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: It's huge. It's a risky leap of faith, but it is what's noble about this work.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Gregg Marcantel is the secretary of corrections in New Mexico. He appears in season 2 of "Behind Bars" on A&E. Thank you so much for your time.</s>GREGG MARCANTEL: It's been a blessing. Thank you so much.

In a new book, surgeon Paul Ruggieri reveals the "good, the bad, and the complicated" about being a surgeon, and operating on patients. From cutting into a man who just killed his wife, to the headaches of running a small business, Ruggieri candidly discusses his career.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Up next, "Confessions of a Surgeon." Have you ever sat in your doctor's office, you know, doctor's going down that long list of aches and pains, and have you ever thought to yourself: I wonder if he's really listening to me. Well, at least one doctor has confessed to not always paying attention to what his patients say.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That revelation is just one of the many secrets spilled in a new book, "Confessions of a Surgeon." I think we need music to wail up on - "Confessions of a Surgeon." And then the book is by surgeon Paul Ruggieri. He takes us behind the operating room doors, a place many of us have been but a few of us know much about because, you know, once you get in there and you start counting backwards, the lights are out, and you don't know what's happening.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, this book is eye-opening, and at times it's actually brutally honest in looking at what it's like to be a surgeon. Paul Ruggieri is a surgeon in private practice in Rhode Island. "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated: Life Behind the OR Doors." Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Paul.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: DR. PAUL RUGGIERI: Thank you, thank you very much. Just to correct one thing, I practice in Massachusetts.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Oh, you've moved.</s>RUGGIERI: No, I didn't move. Massachusetts.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: OK, we'll get that right. And this is an example of - you are brutally honest in your book. You know, you talk about your mistakes, your worries about malpractice, making your mortgage. Why are you willing to confess when other doctors are not?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I've been wanting to write this book for a very long time. I want to give people an honest view of what I do and what many like me do on a daily basis. And it finally came to fruition. Surgeons are human beings. I wanted to educate the public that we are human beings.</s>RUGGIERI: And we're put often in extraordinary circumstances, to make life-and-death decisions quickly, and we have to. We have to do something. And this is - this is our job every day. This is what we face.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So you, like in any profession, you make mistakes.</s>RUGGIERI: Correct, as a human I'm imperfect. I'm not perfect every day. As much as I would like to be, because I know when I'm not perfect, people get hurt. People suffer. But we strive to be perfect, and most of us are perfect every day. That's the beauty of it. Surgery is so safe in this country, and most of us are perfect every day, and we have to be.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is the surgeon that we're likely to face if we need surgery, you know, one of these storybook celebrity surgeons, or are they going to be just sort of a middle, average surgeon?</s>RUGGIERI: Most of us are regular people who are dedicated to what we do. I mean, we have families. We have hobbies. Most of us are regular people who are dedicated to our profession.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You talk in your book, let's talk about some of the things that you mention in your book. You talk very openly about a mistake you made. You were taking out a colon cancer, and when you stitched the person back together, there was a problem. Take us through that.</s>RUGGIERI: As far as the stapling device that's required or...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>RUGGIERI: That incident?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, yes, as we do colon resections, we usually connect the colon together with a stapling device, and we rely on medical instruments every day to what we - what I do. And most surgeons do. And they have to be perfect as well, just like us. And if they're not, we have to recognize that, and we have to correct that.</s>RUGGIERI: And once we - when they're not perfect, and we don't recognize that – again, patients suffer.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 if you'd like to have the doctor, Ruggieri, answer your questions about surgery. Also you can tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. Here's a question from Tom Beauchamp(ph). He says: Why do some patients regain awareness during the operation? How can that be detected earlier?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, actually, some patients not wake up, but the anesthesia may wear off somewhat, and during the operation they may sense something, sense an awareness. It doesn't last, it's very fleeting. I'm assuming that's what he means.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You also mentioned in your book that sometimes you as a surgeon have to clean up virtually a mess made by another surgeon while the operation is still going on.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, there are times when other surgeons get into trouble. I've been into trouble myself, and I've had to call for help. And you have to help the other surgeon because the patient is the most important factor here. No matter what's been done, you have to do your best to go in there and help. We've all been there. Every one of us has been there.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, why are these doctors, if they're incompetent, why are they still practicing medicine and especially surgery?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I wouldn't say they're incompetent. Most surgeons are very competent. Most surgeons are very competent individuals, and occasionally we get into trouble. Again, I have been there, for whatever reason, for the anatomy, for the emergency of it, and we need help sometimes.</s>RUGGIERI: The really incompetent ones are weeded out. They are. We're doing a much better job of policing our own today. We haven't in the past. I'll be the first to admit that. But things are much better now, in the last decade particularly. It's like any profession, like any profession.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: When you were chief of surgery, you had to make a decision to take away the privileges of another surgeon at the hospital though. Isn't that correct?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I had to make a decision whether to sign his privileges. And I could live with that. I could not do that. I had to do the right thing.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: What was wrong with that other surgeon?</s>RUGGIERI: It was a culmination of operations and his outcomes, and somebody had to take a stand. I mean, I was in a position of authority. I had to notify people, and I did.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is there sort of a white book, a white code of honor for surgeons like there is a blue for policemen?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, again, I think any profession, there's a reluctance to speak out against a colleague for a lot of reasons. One is you think nobody will listen to you. Nobody wants to stick their neck out. It's like any profession. Mine is no different. I think it's a cultural thing that's been pervasive in most professions. It's much better today, again, than it has been in the past, much better, and there's more transparency in medicine than there's ever been before.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But you talk in your book about how there's really not a good way to know how good a surgeon is. A lot of the records aren't public.</s>RUGGIERI: That's true. I mean, part of the reason - another part of the reason I wrote this book is to educate the public. They need to be active in really researching who their surgeon is and ask pointed, specific questions about their experience.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And who do you - do you ask it of the surgeon? Is there a database? Or who do you ask this question?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I would actually start with the internist who's going to refer you to a surgeon. You normally see a primary doctor, for whatever the reason is, and they're going to refer you to a surgeon. I would start there. Like why are you referring me to this surgeon? Do you have confidence in this surgeon? Do you have experience with this surgeon?</s>RUGGIERI: And then once you get to the surgeon's office, there are some questions you can ask about the surgeon's experience, as far as the number of operations he or she has done. Have you had complications with this surgery? Is this a new operation that you're doing? There are other things that you can ask.</s>RUGGIERI: But as far as researching on a database (unintelligible) that there's very few informational sites that you can go to.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Here's a question from Jennifer Thompson(ph), who's already has surgery scheduled and wants to know what are a couple of questions that patients should or need to ask that they typically don't ask.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, first of all, I mean, when you sit in front of a surgeon, you want to know what's my diagnosis, and why do I need surgery. And who's going to be doing it. And if I don't need surgery, what are the alternatives? And then once you decide I do need an operation, what is your operative plan? What do you plan to do to me? How will it affect me once you do whatever you do? And then, again, what's my recovery going to be?</s>RUGGIERI: And with this specific operation, what is the most common complication that you've come across, and how have you dealt with it? I mean, those are the kind of pointed questions you can ask about your upcoming operation.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Should you - are there times where you go in with your surgeon, but your surgeon doesn't actually do the operation?</s>RUGGIERI: No, there aren't. I mean, I'm in private practice. It's me. I'm the one doing the surgery. Most private practice surgeons, that's how we operate. At academic centers, there's attending surgeons, they are teaching residents how to operate there. They're constantly monitoring the resident who is doing part of the operation. There's always supervision, but I've never heard of an instance where, no, you go into an operation, somebody else is doing it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: No med student's going to take over learning on your body, something like that?</s>RUGGIERI: I doubt it, unless the surgeon passes out. But I don't think that's going to happen.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Have you ever heard of a surgeon passing out?</s>RUGGIERI: No, not particularly, I have not, but most surgeons are the ones doing the surgery that you see. It should be that way.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How long does it take to become a really good surgeon, how many years?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, that's a good question, actually, because we all train for at least five years. Some go beyond that, seven, 10 years. So when you're done with your training, you're officially stamped as a safe, competent surgeon. But in reality, when you get out there in the real world, in private practice, I mean you're on your own. For the first time you're on your own.</s>RUGGIERI: And there's an old saying in surgery which really is true: The first 10 years when you're in practice, you really learn how to operate. I mean, you do know how to operate, but you're getting the finer details, becoming more confident. The next 10 years, you know when to operate. You manage to get the judgment on deciding when to operate in tough situations.</s>RUGGIERI: And the last 10 years, which is probably the most important, is you when know not to operate, because what I do, if I have to operate on somebody, I mean, sure, I can help them very much, but I could also hurt them very much.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And are you willing to not do the surgery? Because we hear stories of what do surgeons do - they surge - they operate. And so if you go to a surgeon, they're going to say you need an operation when you might not need one.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, most surgeons I know, if you truly do need an operation, there's a truly good indication for it, they will offer that to you. I don't know many surgeons who just operate just because they want to operate. I mean, they're out there, I'm sure. But if you truly need an operation and there's a good indication for it, a surgeon will recommend that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Let's go to...</s>RUGGIERI: I would recommend getting a second opinion if you have any questions about it, even a third opinion.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. What's the biggest misconception people have about surgeons and surgery?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I think there's a - there's still a very thick wall between surgeons and patients. I think patients are afraid of their surgeon, afraid to ask questions. I think they're afraid to ask for a second opinion. I think patients need to become more active. They're going to find out they we're very receptive to this. We want patients to ask questions. We want them to be actively involved in their upcoming operation and thinking about their upcoming operation, because we want them to be realistic about their outcomes.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, I think patients feel that, you know, surgeons are so - they're educated. They're surgeons. They're doctors, and they have - some of them have an attitude about being a surgeon, and they're just fearful, you know. So...</s>RUGGIERI: Yes, I agree. Some of us do have an attitude, and that needs to change. It's changing. But I think there's more transparency in medicine today, and people are becoming more aware of what they need to ask their doctors - not just their surgeon, but the regular doctors as well. They need to become more actively involved in their care, particularly surgery.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. Talking with Paul Ruggieri, author of "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated...Life Behind the O.R. Doors." Let's go to David in Dayton, Ohio. Hi, David.</s>DAVID: Hello. Dr. Ruggieri, I just read your article about informed consent, and that's an article that I found very important to me. I had surgery at the Cleveland Clinic about four years ago. The surgeon promised to do my surgery. I actually put on the consent form that only he was authorized to do my surgery. And I found out when I did not recover and suffered multiple injuries that residents were involved in doing most of my surgery. I also learned that this doctor, who's head of a department, was denied of medical license in Iowa and was not given his board certification.</s>DAVID: I'm unable to break through any barrier to find out what his credentials are, what happened during my surgery. And I learned that there's a whole cluster of patients - many of them contacted me - too, who suffered life-threatening injuries. One fellow three months in the hospital after his surgery, underwent five additional surgeries for reconstruction of his bowel. And I'm just wondering what a patient can do. I've run into a through a brick wall with CMS...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: OK. Let me - let's get an answer because we're running out of time. Dr. Ruggieri?</s>DAVID: OK.</s>RUGGIERI: Yeah, I understand. I completely understand that. I mean, I'm in private practice. I'm the one doing the operating, and there are no residents. And academic centers who - must know that residents may be participating in part of their operation. That's a fact. And if you don't want to be involved in resident care, then you shouldn't go to an academic center. But there is. There's still a big wall between what patients come to find out about the quality and qualifications of their surgeon, and that needs to change. And I'm hoping this book adds to that. But it's a very difficult situation from a patient's standpoint. I agree.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: This SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow, talking with Dr. Paul A. Ruggieri, author of "Confessions of a Surgeon." So you don't have any concrete answers to give him about how to find out the information he's looking for.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, I think what he can do is actually contact the hospital specifically and ask to speak to the department of surgery chairman. I think you'd find that chairman to be very receptive to talking to you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Aren't his records - doesn't he not own his own records of the surgery?</s>RUGGIERI: Oh, yes. He can go in and request (unintelligible), correct. He can request his own medical records to find out actually what was done. It sounds like he found out after the fact that residents did operate - did do part of his operation. So he could definitely do that. Those are his records. He can go and request copies of those records. He needs somebody to interpret them for him, though.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. You've been around a long time. You watched bodies change. You've seen this - what we, you know, this outbreak of obesity. Does that affect how you do surgery?</s>RUGGIERI: No doubt. We're seeing patients today who are thicker, more obese, with more advanced disease that we take into the operating room. And it's - it puts them at risk for complications after the surgery. That's a known fact. That's in the medical literature. It makes our job harder, physically, to do whatever we have to do, whether it's in the chest, the abdomen, wherever. And that's a problem. That's going to be a continued problem in this country.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. See if can get a quick call in before we have to go. Dominic in Los Angeles. Hi, Dom.</s>DOMINIC: Good afternoon. I'm a trauma surgeon. I work in one of the large trauma centers in the country, and my brother is thoracic surgeon. And on any given Friday night, I probably do more surgeries in an eight-hour shift than he does in a month. And most of our patients are referred to as victims. We get gunshots, stabbings, suicides by the dozens. And I'm sure we deal with our patients a lot differently than your guest does.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And what's - have you got a point or question about that, that you want to make?</s>DOMINIC: Well, only that trauma surgery is a specialty now, and the number of surgeries that we do, the greater number of them save people's lives. We take pride in the fact that we lose very few of our victims. It's a severe trauma, and it has become a state-of-the-art type of situation. In the past, before there were certified trauma centers, there were emergency rooms. And they would take doctors off the floor who may have been eye, ear, nose and throat to handle an emergency case. And it has developed considerably in the last 25 years.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Thanks for calling. Our number: 1...</s>RUGGIERI: Yeah. I agree totally. I agree totally with that statement.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. Surgeons are now more specialized and getting called when they need to be. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk more about surgery. Our number: 1-800-989-8255. "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated...Life Behind the O.R. Doors." Paul A. Ruggieri, R-U-G-G-I-E-R-I, M.D. Stay with us. We'll be right back.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow, talking with Paul A. Ruggieri. My Italian pronunciation is close.</s>RUGGIERI: Oh, I knew that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. My producer, Christopher Intagliata, keeps me honest, so...</s>RUGGIERI: (unintelligible)</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad and the Complicated...Life Behind the O.R. Doors." Our number is 1-800-989-8255. I guess one of the most difficult things of - part of being a doctor is dealing with the patient and the relatives and bringing bad news to patients, not just that maybe the outcome wasn't what you expected, but maybe that you made a mistake in surgery.</s>RUGGIERI: Oh, there's no question. It's very difficult on that front, and the other front, bad news, bringing somebody news that they have cancer. I mean, the stories in my book, particularly one - well, two actually. One is I explored a gentleman who was having abdominal problems, and got in there and found there was cancer everywhere. The family really didn't expect that, and I had to come out and tell the family that this is what I found. It was a very big shock to them. They weren't prepared for that. And it is very difficult to do, but you have to be honest with patients. I believe you really have to be honest, particularly up front, in the beginning, especially if the operation didn't go well and there was a problem with something that you did. You need to be honest with patients. Let them know. Patients respect honesty. They really do.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And you must develop some sort of distance, though, when somebody is on that operating table, you're - and you mentioned this in the book, there's no real personal connection to that person. And...</s>RUGGIERI: That's correct. I believe - this is the way I have to be. I think many like me are the same way, in the operating room, focused on what we're doing. We have to be, particularly in an emergency situation, when someone's bleeding from a ruptured spleen. You really can't think about anything else. You have to think about what you're doing, and quickly. Then once things are under control, then you can relax a little bit.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. And you have to be good at improvising, you mention in your book.</s>RUGGIERI: Exactly. That is - and that comes with experience. That comes with experience.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Because you always go in there thinking something is going to go wrong and be ready for it.</s>RUGGIERI: Well, we do. I mean, it's not - I do. I do that, especially with emergency settings where I have to operate on somebody, not knowing what's going in the patient's abdomen. You have to expect the worst.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And are you trained for that in med school?</s>RUGGIERI: Not in med school, no. Residency, you are. You should be trained to deal with that when you come out of residency. But the reality is you need experience. You need some years under your belt, because you don't experience everything in residency.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right. So if you're, quote-unquote, "shopping for a surgeon," how many years of experience do you want in that surgeon?</s>RUGGIERI: Well, there are data out there that shows surgeons who have experience in certain type of operations are better at them. That's been proven in several major surgeries and surgery centers. I mean, it depends what operation you're looking for, as well, what operation you need to have done. People coming out of residency are qualified. They are very qualified to do what they need to do. The problem is they need more experience to know what their limitations are, and you gain that experience.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Do you have music in your theater there?</s>RUGGIERI: I do, on occasion - not every day. I'll grab a CD on the way out the door, you know, depending on how I feel.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And while you're - if you're doing routine surgery, are you thinking about picking up dinner that night while, you know, you're working on somebody?</s>RUGGIERI: Not dinner, no.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Not dinner.</s>RUGGIERI: Not dinner.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's the wrong thing. I mean, but you're thinking of other things that may be on your mind.</s>RUGGIERI: Oh, you really not. You're - I mean, routine - most operations are very boring and routine. That's the great thing about what I do, too, and that's great. Boring routine is perfect. So, you know, you're concentrating on what you're doing, and usually it goes well. And - but you do think about other things after a critical part of the operation, maybe down to your closing and everything's done.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to the phones: 1-800-989-8255. Robert in Grass Valley, California. Hi, Robert.</s>ROBERT: Hi. How are you today?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi, there.</s>ROBERT: Good. Just a suggestion, to possibly speak to the OR nurses just to get a suggestion on who they would have to have perform surgeries, since they cannot tell you who they would not have perform the surgery. Thank you.</s>RUGGIERI: That's a fantastic suggestion, no question. That is a fantastic suggestion, if you know an operating room nurse or know somebody who works in an operating room where you're going to have surgery.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's right. At least you can sort of weed out people you don't want rather than getting the best person's recommendation. So word of mouth is a good way to find out.</s>RUGGIERI: I agree.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. And doctors don't advertise they're great surgeons, or they do sometimes. Do you disrespect people who do a lot of advertising?</s>RUGGIERI: I don't, but it's rarely done, to be honest. We don't. It's not in our nature. It just is not. Maybe we should do more advertising, but we don't. Most surgeons are very quiet individuals. They let their work speak for themselves.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Let's go to Cathy(ph) in St. Louis. Hi, Cathy.</s>CATHY: Hi. This is a fascinating conversation for me. I'm a former O.R. nurse. And there are all kinds of things I would love to comment on, but the one thing I haven't heard mentioned, which I think is critically important and that the general public doesn't realize, is that when you are having surgery, there is more than one physician in the room. There's your surgeon, but there's also the person who is keeping you alive, known as the anesthesiologist. And while people will invest time in finding out who's doing their surgery, nine times out of 10, they don't have a clue who's going to be keeping them alive while they're having that surgery, and that's the job of the anesthesiologist.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Interesting point. Doctor, a comment?</s>RUGGIERI: That's an excellent point. And I address that a little bit in my book, but that is an excellent point because usually you meet with anesthesiologist before your operation, and it may not be the same person that is going to do your anesthesia. But you - that is an excellent point.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, Dr. Ruggieri, thank you for taking time to be with us today.</s>RUGGIERI: Oh, my pleasure.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Paul Ruggieri is - M.D., is author of "Confessions of a Surgeon: The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated, Life Behind the OR Doors."

The new year marks the creation of a science section at The Huffington Post. The Internet newspaper's editor-in-chief, Arianna Huffington discusses the story selection and vetting process. And why the launch coincides with what she calls the explosion of medieval thinking.

Next up: A bit of good news for those of you lamenting the loss of your newspaper science section. The Huffington Post has a new section dedicated to science, also find a lot of technology there. Editors of the news site describe it as one-stop shopping for the latest in scientific news and opinion, with an aim to entertain as well as inform.</s>Next up: The Huffington Post has a sizeable audience, and I mean over 1 billion page views per month. And the Huffington Post readers are the first to tell you that its appeal lies in its chatty and interactive style. So how does that style translate when you're covering science stories? How do you vet the science and blog posts written by unpaid contributors?</s>Next up: Arianna Huffington is the president and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, also a nationally syndicated columnist, author of 13 books. I'm stumbling over myself because she needs no introduction. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Arianna.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Thank you so much. Thank you for having me on.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're welcome. Thanking you - thank you for taking time to be with us. Why is this the right time to launch Huff Post science?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Well, it's the right time because we seem to be, at the moment, confronting a kind of explosion of truly medieval thinking in our world, like questioning evolution, questioning global warming, questioning a lot of thought - a lot of things that we thought we could finally take for granted.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: And we feel that we have an opportunity to explore everything, from the big issues of our time, like the universe, to physical and chemical and other scientific discoveries, all the way down to the sense of wonder that the universe elicits, and to also end some false divisions, like we don't see that there is a division between spirituality and science.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: And in our first week, we actually had posts from different scientists who are very comfortable with religion, like Brown biology Professor Kenneth Miller, who has written that Darwin is not an obstacle to faith but is a key to understanding our relationship with God. And that has been a preoccupation of mine for many years. And so it's really a great opportunity now to reach a wider audience and have them also use the platform to explore all these questions.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Do you find it odd that science has become so politicized in our country?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: I do, actually, because I feel, in a way, that we in the media have partly some responsibility to play because we - instead of seeing our role as ferreting out the truth, we sometimes see our role as simply mediating a debate: on the one hand, Senator Inhofe, who thinks global warming is a hoax; on the other hand, someone discussing the dangers of global warming. And I think that has brought about a certain atmosphere where you can imagine everything being questioned. Maybe we'll have a debate as to whether the Earth is flat. And we do have a completely open debate about things while the jury is still out, but at the same time acknowledge that certain things have been settled by science.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Speaking of debate, I'm glad you brought it up because we are in the debate and campaigning season. Why isn't science ever mentioned in these debates, in these campaign issues? Why aren't we asking the candidates more questions about where they stand on issues like climate change and evolution? And I'm thinking, particularly back in December of 2007, at the Republican debate in Iowa where the candidates refused to show their hands if they believed climate change. Do you remember that?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: I know and evolution, I remember that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: That was an amazing moment when they obviously considered that being - that recognizing evolution as a fact would be detrimental to their electoral chances. But that's why I feel it's an important moment to say it's great to debate everything. But also, it's very central to our democracy to establish where the facts lie and to revere facts because as someone said, you know, everybody has a right to their opinion but not to their own set of facts.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Shouldn't we demand from our candidates that they have some, at least, grounding in basic science? And shouldn't we ask them - as much as you want to see their birth certificate, or you want to see their taxes from the, you know, 2011, shouldn't we be asking them how old do you think the Earth is, questions like that?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: That would be great, actually. I think we should ask our leaders and your listeners that question. What would you include in that questionnaire? What kind of questions would go along with how old do you think the Earth is? It would be a great questionnaire, you know, to send to campaigns.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: You know how campaigns have to answer all sorts of questionnaires, from Planned Parenthood to The Family Coalition. So how about also answering questions from a coalition of citizens who care about science?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. Well, when we get down if we get down to two candidates for the presidential election...</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Let's do it. Let's...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's do it. Let's...</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Absolutely. Let's combine forces, you and the new baby that I have for science section.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm ready.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We'll supply some questions.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: OK. I'll help you do it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: OK. We'll supply some questions. Talking with Arianna Huffington on SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow. Let's talk about your blog post for a second. There is a mechanism for editorial oversight, correct?</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Yes.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You have people, legitimate science writers on that staff.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Absolutely. And we also have, as you may have seen, a new feature that we call Talk Nerdy to Me. Cara Santa Maria, who is - has a PhD in science, and her job is to take different issues and to try to make them very understandable and also kind of introduce some humor to them because part of what we want to do is to expand the numbers of people who care about science and who want to learn about science and issues attached on our lives every day that have a scientific grounding.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. You call - you touched on it just briefly, that the intersection of science and religion is one of your passions. And you were saying, and we've had other scientists on SCIENCE FRIDAY, who say there really doesn't have to be the divide there. I can believe in my religion and still believe in science at the same time.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Exactly. And there is a book which actually I have in front of me - I'm sure you know it - by Arthur Koestler called "The Act of Creation," which is a beautiful accounting of many scientists' own writings about their discoveries, and how they use dreams, intuition and a lot of non-factual and scientific avenues to get to their discoveries and then, of course, have to prove everything with all the means at their disposal.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: I remember also Einstein's breakthrough equation, you know, E=MC2. And for me, that equation is like - is an assurance that nothing in the universe is unrelated to anything else, and then it has - the way that it had an emotional impact on him, not just an intellectual impact.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And there is the religious aspect, and then there's the political aspect, and then there is the - I'm not sure where this originated. I'm thinking of global warming or green technologies and why this kind of stuff has to be political. Why do issues about the environment become political? You know, the environment was - the EPA was created by Richard Nixon back in the early '70s. When did this all become...</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Yes. I mean, it's hard to imagine Richard Nixon winning the Republican nomination at the moment, because remember, he also wanted a lot of things done to the economy that many would disapprove of today in the Republican Party. But I think beyond that there's so many powerful economic interests here at work, whether it's the oil industry or the chemical industry. And that's why it's very important to make sure that facts prevail, and that we don't let, you know, special interests even determine what to consider scientific truth or not.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, I want to wish you good luck in - on your Huffington Post site and bringing science and technology to more people there.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Thank you so much.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You need to be congratulated. We'll see you - maybe we'll have some SCIENCE FRIDAY stuff up there that we can recommend questions to be asked of the candidates.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Oh, we - definitely, let's do that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Arianna, thank you for taking time to be with us today.</s>ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group. And, of course, you know her website on the Web. We - before we go, we want to thank all of you who submitted photos to our winter nature photo contest. We're going to have the results published on our website. You can check our Facebook page, scifri, for an update, or see all the beautiful photos we have there. We still have them up there. We were in the final process of judging them. And there will be a link up there to see which photos of one which - we have a few staff picks that we thought were outstanding.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But we have hundreds and hundreds of them, and our senior producer Annette Heist had the wonderful job of looking through all of them and getting it up there on our website.

So far, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been speaking to largely white crowds when he asks African-Americans to vote for him. This weekend, Trump met with black voters in Detroit.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump campaigned at a black church in Detroit yesterday, trying to step up his outreach to black voters. So far, his approval has been in the low single digits with that voting demographic, and previous overtures to the community have been called tone deaf. NPR's Sam Sanders was in Detroit yesterday, and he reports on how Trump's latest effort was received.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: The service began a few minutes late. The pews are about half-full. All the press and the Secret Service seems to make people there nervous. But once it began, the Saturday service at Greater Faith Ministries Church in Detroit sounded just like you'd expect.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How many know you're in the house of the Lord today? How many know he is a great God?</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: This service was different, though. There was a special guest at this almost all-black gathering. And even Pastor Wayne T. Jackson had to acknowledge that guest was kind of a little bit out of place.</s>WAYNE T JACKSON: First of all, I understand that this is his first African-American church he's been in, y'all (laughter).</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: But Donald Trump made his best effort - standing and clapping during the songs, sometimes on beats one, two, three and four, smiling, shaking hands, even holding a baby perhaps a little too high over his head. This was Trump black outreach version 2.0. After rumors all week that he wouldn't even address the crowd there, Trump spoke.</s>DONALD TRUMP: Thank you very much.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Trump's message was very different than the question he had been asking black voters previously, which was - what do you have to lose?</s>DONALD TRUMP: You do right every day by your community and your families. You raise children in the light of God. I will always support your church - always - and defend your right to worship.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Trump said he came to listen. He called for a new civil rights agenda. He acknowledged that blacks still face discrimination in this country, and he listed some of the things he'd like to make happen for Detroit and the country.</s>DONALD TRUMP: We're going to bring jobs back. I will have a chance - thank you. We'll bring them back. Taking them back from Mexico and everywhere else because they're gone. I will have a chance to discuss school choice, which is very important, and how to put every American on the ladder to success - a great education and a great job.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Trump also closed his remarks with Scripture.</s>DONALD TRUMP: See, most groups I speak to don't know that, but we know it. If you want, we can say it...</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Before the service, Trump also gave a one-on-one interview with Pastor Jackson. There had been rumors the interview would be entirely scripted, questions and answers. Trump didn't stay for the entire church service. After the pastor gave him a prayer shawl from Israel, Trump was off to a suburb of Detroit called River Rouge. His guide was Dr. Ben Carson - Detroit native, former presidential candidate, current Trump surrogate. Carson was showing Trump around his old neighborhood. They even said hi to the current owner of Carson's childhood home.</s>DONALD TRUMP: ...Very much, good luck.</s>FELICIA REESE: Oh, OK, all right. Well, you have a nice time at...</s>DONALD TRUMP: ...You, too. Watch that bee.</s>FELICIA REESE: Thank you.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: That's Felicia Reese. She's a nurse. But Trump and Carson weren't there long, maybe 10 minutes.</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Mr. Trump, what did you think of your visit here today into Detroit?</s>DONALD TRUMP: I loved it.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Once they left, Reese told me she didn't actually know Trump was coming to her house yesterday. Also, she said this of Trump's black outreach.</s>FELICIA REESE: I don't think he's real interested in us. He does...</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: ...Us being black people.</s>FELICIA REESE: Yes. I don't think he's real interested in us.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: Reese also offered her prediction on who would win in November.</s>FELICIA REESE: The Democrats. Hillary Clinton.</s>SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: I talked with several other black voters up and down the street. Several said this new effort at black outreach from Trump, it was all just too little, too late. Sam Sanders, NPR News, Detroit.

Today is the Queen's birthday — Queen B, that is. Beyonce's birthday has become a moment of celebration for people across the country, and last night, many people danced the night away.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Here on WEEKEND EDITION Sunday, we always like to celebrate. So we're particularly glad you're with us this holiday weekend.</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) May the last one burn into flames.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Nope - not talking about Labor Day.</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) Freedom, freedom, I can't move. Freedom, cut me loose.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Today is the queen's birthday. Queen Bey, Beyonce Knowles, is turning 35.</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) I break chains all by myself - won't let my freedom rot in hell. Hey, I'm going to keep running 'cause a winner don't quit on themselves.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Bey Day, as it's known, is an unofficial holiday for the BeyHive, her legions of fans. Some clubs celebrated last night with themed drinks, an all-Beyonce playlist and "Lemonade" on the monitors. Last year, fans started a White House petition to declare September 4 a national holiday.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It didn't quite meet the requirements, but you can still find it online. The petition suggests fans can celebrate in many ways, including, quote, "reminding those around them that they woke up like this."</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) I'm going to riot, I'm going to riot through your borders. Call me bulletproof.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I know I did.</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) Lord, forgive me. I've been running, running blind in truth. I'm going to wade. I'm a wave through your shallow love. Tell the deep I'm new. I'm telling these tears, go and fall away, fall away.

Physicians in India have discovered a strain of tuberculosis they call 'TDR' for 'Totally Drug-Resistant'—meaning there is no antibiotic available to fight it. Maryn McKenna, author of Superbug, discusses the possible origins of the strain, and what options—if any—doctors have to treat it.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. We talk many times about the rise of drug-resistant bacteria, germs that resist most antibiotics, except for a precious few. A case in point is tuberculosis. But now comes word of a strain of TB that is totally drug-resistant, TDR TB as doctors are calling it. There are no second-choice antibiotics here. We simply have no drugs to fight this superbug. There are no weapons left. And it has now infected a dozen patients in India.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How did the strain originate? And if our drugs don't work anymore, what can doctors do, if anything, and what kind of threat does it - well, does it pose to us - the rest of the people around the world? Here to talk about it is Maryn McKenna. She is the author of "Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA." She also writes the "Superbug" blog for Wired, where the story appeared. She joins us by phone. Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Maryn, tell us about this - it sounds pretty scary this new superbug.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: You know, I have to say I find this chilling, and it's a little complicated. So the way this came to light is that immediately before Christmas, so almost everyone missed it at the time, including me, a couple of physicians in Mumbai wrote a letter to a medical journal describing four patients they have with what they called totally drug-resistant TB. Which means, as you said, none of the first-line drugs and none of the second-line drugs - that's more than a dozen drugs, altogether - nothing worked.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: These people had - just were uncurable. The Indian media jumped on the story and got the hospital to admit that there are actually were 12 patients. They just happened to have complete histories for four. Now, over the next couple days, it turns out that TDR TB was actually seen before - in 2009 in 15 patients in Iran. I've spoken to the Iranian physicians. No one is quite sure what happened to those folks. And there were also two cases in Italy who both died in 2003.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: So clearly, it's been popping up for a while, but it looks like this Indian cluster is the one that may be the most - the best documented, and it's certainly the one causing the most concern.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Maryn, do we know how this originated, or how it started?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: No. Unfortunately, that's the problem. So, you know, when we talk about antibiotic resistance, as you and I have talked before, we - there are all kinds of things that can contribute to that - misused of antibiotics; in agriculture, misused in, sort of, everyday medicine. What's going on here with this TB very clearly is that it's an artifact created by poor medical care and poor use of drugs. These people, in India at least, and certainly in the other cases, were not correctly diagnosed to start with.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: They were given the wrong drugs. They weren't given the right length of drugs, and even at the best of times, MDR TB or highly resistant TB is difficult to treat. And they were sort of kind of natural laboratories for the emergence of the totally resistant strain.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So how fearful should we be, that this strain will permeate around the world?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: So, you know, this is a sort of plus-minus proposition. Because, on the one hand, it's really troubling to have something like this because we live in such a globalized society where people move back and forth from the industrialized world to the developing world through different economies. And diagnostic tools for TB are really not good. So, you might think that someone has everyday TB, and they might have a resistant form. The other side of that is that TB is not that easy to catch.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: It's not like measles. You don't catch TB by just walking past someone on the street. You have to be in close contact with them. But I'll say the third thing that really makes my jaw drop is that, literally, as I was waiting for this phone line to come live, a bulletin moved across the wire that there are two more cases of TDR TB in another hospital in a different part of India. They were being held in confinement in the hospital, and one of them has gone missing.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: One of the patients has gone missing?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: One of the patients has skipped out, probably understandably, because they - these drugs are not pleasant to take, and they cause a lot of side effects. You have to take them for a very long time. It's probably not very pleasant being treated as a public health criminal. So one of these patients has checked himself out of the hospital and disappeared.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So we don't know where that - an infectious patient with the strain of totally drug-resistant TB...</s>MARYN MCKENNA: Correct.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...is missing. Wow. What would we do in this country? What are they doing in India, to find that person or to stop it from spreading?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: Well, I think the Indian government is really kind of struggling with this. And it must be said that the media in India have really jumped on this story and are really pushing it forward, which I think is just fantastic. Because, of course, and, you know, as has been seen in other countries with other profound infectious diseases, there's a lot of stigma associated with a situation like this where your country suddenly gets identified with the deadly disease. So the Indian media are pushing the government to try to articulate its plans. But the reality is, India is a pretty under-resourced society when it comes particularly to health care because of the size of its population and the differential between the rich and the poor. It does not have the diagnostic tools that are needed. It's actually quite difficult to diagnose resistant TB, as opposed to plain TB.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So what do you do to treat these people? Are you going to do - or is it back to the old sanitarium, pre-antibiotic days? You put people out, isolate them, quarantine them and hope they get better?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: Well, if you think back a couple of years ago, when people started to be concerned about MDRTB, that's TB resistant just the first-line drugs, there were a couple of cases that came into the United States and public health authorities held them, essentially, in isolation. The - what's suppose to happen is that until you are deemed non-infectious while you've been in drug treatment, if you have one of these highly infectious, highly-resistant forms, you are supposed to be confined in some manner. But, you know, if you ask a public health person, do we have enough isolation rooms and hospitals in this country to contain a major epidemic, we already know from worrying about highly-infectious flu that we don't have enough isolation rooms. We certainly don't have enough to contain a major TB epidemic.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So everybody's going to be watching to see if this spreads. And in the meantime, the Indian government will be looking for this missing patient.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: I think that people are really concerned about what happens next. Because as one of the physicians who brought this to light to start with a couple of days ago, admitted what they have identified is just the tip of the iceberg. And really, no one is sure how big the rest of that iceberg is.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let me see if I can get a quick question in from a listener. Let's go to Jared in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hi, Jared.</s>JARED: Hi. Thank you for taking my call.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm.</s>JARED: I watched a documentary some time ago about the Soviet bacteriophage program, where they cultured different bacteriophages that would specifically attack different disease-causing bacteria. It appeared that that program really shutdown with the fall of the Soviet Union. But I was wondering if that technology still offers any promise for treatment.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: So, that's a really interesting question. A couple of things within that, the first is that the phage program did not completely shut down, though it ceased to be state-supported. And I believe there's still a phage program in the state of Georgia - not the state of Georgia I'm sitting in, but the state of Georgia in the former Soviet Union. But whether phages are effective against tuberculosis is something I really know nothing about.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. But it's an interesting question, Jared, about using phages, because there's a phage for every kind of bacteria, isn't there?</s>JARED: That's what the documentary indicated...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah.</s>JARED: ...and I was wondering if that was a possibility in this case.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. That's an interesting possibility. Thanks for calling. 1-800-989-8255. So how do we wrap up this story? Is this a hopeful story, Maryn, or is it - are we just fearful now?</s>MARYN MCKENNA: I think it's reasonable to be fearful. I don't think we should be panicked. I think we should be paying attention to the lessons that are embedded within this story. There are a couple of them. The first is the - sort of one of my favorite themes, which is where are the new drugs? Because the reason that we're so scared about highly drug-resistant TB is because there's no new drug coming along. The drugs that we rely on for TB control, in fact, a lot of bacterial control these days are about 50 years old, because it's not cost-effective for pharmaceutical companies to make antibiotics.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: The second is we have to be aware that we need much better diagnostic tools, you know. It can take weeks to grow TB out in culture to figure out if it's susceptible. But there are some new diagnostic techniques, molecular diagnostic techniques that could help and make that faster if developing world economies could afford them.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: And the third is we just have to be aware that, really, we're all vulnerable at any time. Borders don't protect us. These kind of diseases move back and forth across borders without being detected, and we're really only - as so many health - public health authorities always say, we're only a plane ride away from anything.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Thank you, Maryn.</s>MARYN MCKENNA: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Maryn McKenna is author of "Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA." She also writes the Superbug blog for Wired, where you can find this story, and it first appeared. And she joined us by phone.

The state now sees wildfires that are on average bigger than ever and that burn through more of the year. Cal Fire's Southern Region information officer Michael Mohler speaks to Rachel Martin.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: A major fire in Southern California has destroyed more than a hundred homes and dozens of other buildings in San Bernardino County since it started on Tuesday. The so-called Blue Cut fire has now spread across 37,000 acres in the area. It's the latest in a string of fires that have plagued California as it battles a five-year drought. Firefighters there say there used to be a fire season in the state, but now they have to be on alert all year round. Mike Mohler is a battalion chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and he joins us now from San Bernardino. Thanks so much for being with us.</s>MIKE MOHLER: Thank you for having me.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can you give us a sense of the severity of this fire? Can you describe the damage you've seen?</s>MIKE MOHLER: Within 24 hours, this fire grew to 30,000 acres, and that's just the conditions that we're seeing statewide. Unfortunately, this fire moves so fast that at this point we have over - well over a hundred structures that have been destroyed. We're happy to report, though, as of now there were no injuries to civilians.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So I guess this is the big question. Why is it that the fires in California are becoming increasingly more destructive and more frequent?</s>MIKE MOHLER: Well, even though Northern California did have some precipitation this winter, five years of drought, the fuel moistures are no longer there, meaning that there's no moisture in the actual vegetation. And when we get these fires now, we are seeing what we call now explosive fire growth. And now the explosive fire growth statewide is unfortunately the new normal. We're seeing fire conditions that are unprecedented. In my 22 years, I haven't seen fire move like I have this year. I was with a 31-year veteran on the Blue Cut fire. He said the same thing. I've never seen it like this.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I imagine this puts financial pressure on your department. How do you pay for it?</s>MIKE MOHLER: Well, it does. We have what we call the Emergency Fund, or the E-Fund, that we use to battle these large fires. And right now, that's what we use to pay for them. And then if that fund, at some point, we're getting close or, you know, we go over expenditure, we can go back to the legislators to increase the funding. But I think for your listeners to know that in the state of California there's always going to be funding and there will always be firefighting equipment there if we do have a large fire.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Have people who live in these places that are particularly prone to fires - have you seen behaviors start to change? Have you seen residents start to move out of these particularly dangerous places?</s>MIKE MOHLER: No. In fact, the exact opposite. We're actually seeing more homes and tracks being built in these areas. And that brings me to another point - is, you know, a lot of these people that live especially in the Blue Cut area didn't evacuate, the reason being is they - well, we've seen fire. We live here. Well, now the way that fires are moving, people can't stay in their homes anymore. And if they're asked to evacuate, they need to. When firefighters are seeing fire growth that they've never seen, you only have seconds to get out of your home if you wait.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What does this mean in the medium and long term for fire departments in California when you think about this drought and the extension of what used to be a very discreet period of time in the year that was the fire season? Now, as you said, it's the new normal. Every month is the fire season. It lasts almost for 12 months.</s>MIKE MOHLER: Well, I think what we're seeing now - departments are going to have to look at different staffing models, you know? And in the wintertime when we used to have fire season, when we would get rain, some of our brush engines and stations, we would down staff and move those firefighters to other areas. That's not the case anymore, that - and we're going to have to look at different staffing models, additional equipment for year-round operations and year-round response just to battle those types of fires.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Battalion Chief Mike Mohler with Cal Fire speaking to us from San Bernardino where the Blue Cut fire has been raging.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thanks so much for taking the time.</s>MIKE MOHLER: Thank you.

Nearly 27 percent of the people in the country are 65 or older. NPR's Ina Jaffe visited Japan and tells Rachel Martin what she learned about why the population is aging.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Japan has the oldest population in the world. Nearly 27 percent of the people there are 65 or older. NPR's Ina Jaffe covers aging, so, of course, she wanted to go there and check it out. She did, and she's now back sharing her reporting. This week on NPR, you'll hear her stories on how Japan is changing as its population grows older. Ina joins us now from our studios at NPR West. Hi, Ina.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Hi, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: First off, why is Japan the oldest nation in the world?</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Well, it's not really because people live longer, although they do have a life expectancy about five years more than in this country. But really it's because the population is shrinking. Women there just aren't having as many babies. So if nothing changes by the year 2060, people aged 65-plus will make up at least 40 percent of the population there.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. So I imagine that could, in turn, have an impact on the economy.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Yeah, that's a real concern there because you have both this big decline in working-age population and then a strain on the social security system. So one of the government's ideas for dealing with this is to get more older people into the workforce and keep them there longer.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How do they do that? I mean, you can't force people to work longer - or can you?</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Well, actually the bigger problem in Japan is that you can force people to retire. They have mandatory retirement there. And the age has been 60, though they're gradually raising it to 65. And you can keep working past mandatory retirement age sometimes, but there's not a lot of incentive because once you hit 60, your salary usually drops to a fraction of what you made before. So, you know, Americans would be on the phone to their lawyers, right?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: But this is an accepted practice in Japan, and it's one of the things that some people I talked to say will have to change.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Something else that goes along with an aging population, unfortunately, can be Alzheimer's, other forms of dementia. Is that a concern there?</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Oh, definitely. You know how one of the symptoms of Alzheimer's, for example, is wandering, right? So in Japan last year, more than 12,000 people with dementia were missing long enough to be reported to the police. And while most were found alive within a week, nearly 500 were found dead and 150 were never found.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Oh my. So what is Japan doing about this? I mean, can the government do anything about that?</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Well, I went to a city called Matsudo that's taken a sort of community approach. For a few years now, they've been giving dementia awareness training to pharmacists and postal clerks and just people who volunteer to take it. And part of the thinking is that if you can't keep people from wandering, maybe you have a whole community that can keep them safe when they do. And this approach is now part of Japan's nationwide plan to deal with dementia, and millions of people there have already taken this training.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what's it like to just spend some time in that country? I mean, do you see evidence of that aging population?</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Oh, you do. In the cities, for example, (laughter) one of the places you see it is convenience stores. And one of the things they're doing to compete is finding ways to cater to their aging clientele. You'll find products there you'd never see in your local mini mart like prepackaged meals for people who have trouble chewing. But really the place that you see aging of Japan most clearly is in the rural areas. There's a term you hear in Japan, it's village on the edge, as in village on the edge of extinction. I went to one a few hundred miles south of Tokyo where the population has gone from around 300 people to just 30.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: It's now known as Scarecrow Village because a woman who lives there has repopulated the place by making scarecrows and putting them at the bus stop and in the school and in all the places people used to be.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is a haunting image.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: It is. It's amazing to be there.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You can hear Ina's stories on the aging of Japan this week on other NPR programs or find them online at npr.org. Ina, thanks so much.</s>INA JAFFE, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Mara Liasson looks back on a week of political upheaval: new leadership in Donald Trump's campaign, and changes to the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Last night at a rally in Fredericksburg, Va., Donald Trump spoke to a crowd described as overwhelmingly white, and he made an appeal for inclusivity.</s>DONALD TRUMP: The GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln.</s>UNIDENTIFIED CROWD: (Cheering).</s>DONALD TRUMP: And I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's part of an overall shift in tone in recent days after a staffing shake-up at the top of his campaign. NPR's national political correspondent, Mara Liasson, joins us now for more on the presidential race. Good morning, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Leaders in the Republican establishment have been talking about broadening the tents in the GOP since 2012. We're just a couple months out from the election now, and Donald Trump is turning to this issue, attracting minority voters. Is it too late?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: It's unclear what he plans to do about that. He did mention that the Republican Party needs more outreach to African-Americans. The problem is that Donald Trump is polling at near zero or 1 percent in some polls with African-Americans.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I want to turn now to an investigation that was published in The New York Times this weekend. They looked into Donald Trump's business dealings. What did they find in there?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: They found that his business dealings are extremely complicated and opaque. But they determined that he had debts of about $650 million, including to two sources that he regularly reviles on the campaign trails, and that's China and Goldman Sachs. It's unclear whether this new investigation will have any effect on the campaign.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's talk about this leadership shuffle. Paul Manafort is out, GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway is in. Are we seeing her influence already?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Yes, we are seeing her influence already. Donald Trump did something very unusual. He said he has regrets about some of the things he said that could've caused people personal pain. That shows you the influence of Kellyanne Conway right there. She is an expert at helping conservative Republicans speak to people, particularly women, in ways that won't push them away. She's trying to help Trump be Trump, but more disciplined.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And what about Steve Bannon? He's also in the campaign leadership team now. He's the head of Breitbart News, a conservative news website. What is Donald Trump looking for from him?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Breitbart, the website, has been the biggest media megaphone for what you might call Trumpism (ph), this isolationist, nationalist, anti-globalization, white identity politics. And if, for some reason, Trump does not end up in the White House, then making a partnership with Steve Bannon and Breitbart is a pretty good strategy. Maybe Donald Trump wants to start a media company or a cable channel to continue being the voice of that movement. Steve Bannon is Trump's Trump.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's turn now to Hillary Clinton. The emails released by WikiLeaks have raised questions about the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton was in that top job. President Bill Clinton met with staff at the Clinton Global Initiative on Thursday. Do we know what he said?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Yes, we do. We know that the Clinton Global Initiative will not continue after this year. Also, the foundation will no longer take donations from corporations or foreign entities. And there won't be a presence for Bill Clinton or Chelsea Clinton running the foundation if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Now, what this acknowledges is that the Clinton Foundation has been a problem for Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats say she should've made these changes earlier. It also raises questions about what about conflicts with past donors if she's the president?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: And meanwhile, the email problems aren't going away either. The FBI has turned over to Congress its notes of their interviews with Hillary Clinton, and a judge in a private lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, which is a conservative advocacy organization, has ordered Clinton to provide written answers to their questions.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's national political correspondent, Mara Liasson. Thanks, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Thank you.

Zeinab al-Ashry founded the popular Facebook group, "Confessions of a Married Woman." University of California Riverside professor Sherine Hafez talks to Rachel Martin about an online trend in Egypt.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Social media played a big role in the Arab Spring. Protesters used those sites to share ideas, organize and then mobilize. Five years later, social media continues to provide a safe space for conversations that otherwise might not happen openly. There's one called Confessions of a Married Woman. It's an invitation-only Facebook group that's just for women, as you might guess. It's got about 50,000 members, and it's become a place where women can open up about topics that remain generally off limits. Twenty-eight-year-old Zeinab al-Ashry created the group.</s>ZEINAB AL-ASHRY: What made me start the group, I got married and I faced the regular problems that any newlywed couple face. But what hit me that the marriage - anything related to marriage is considered as a taboo here in Egypt or in the Middle East in general. The big number of issues that we get are, of course, of cheating husbands, sexual relations. The sexual education in the Middle East is, like, zero.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: For more on these sites and their impact on Egyptian culture, we reached out to Sherine Hafez. She's a gender and sexuality studies professor at the University of California Riverside, and she is the author of "An Islam Of Her Own." She joins me now from Los Angeles. Thanks so much for being with us.</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we're talking today about this particular Facebook group called Confessions of a Married Woman that's really popular in Egypt right now. But there are other groups like this out there, too, right? I understand there's a group called Cairo Confessional. Can you tell me what that's about?</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: OK, so this group was founded in March 2013, and the group is supposed to help people with issues of mental health. And, you know, they have, like, a whole staff of psychologists who are waiting in the sidelines, you know, just to step in and help people with their issues.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So obviously in that case, talking about people who have mental health problems and the Confessions of a Married Woman, these are situations where people are clearly feeling like they don't have another outlet. I mean, is that why these Facebook groups are becoming so popular as a safe space to talk about things that perhaps don't have a place in the public discourse in Egypt?</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: Yeah, I think that this is a very accurate assessment of what these confessional websites are - I mean, Facebooks are about. Many of the people - young people in particular, and specifically after the revolution of 2011 - feel alienated from any sort of public participation. Whereas, you know, during the revolution, there were millions of people in Tahrir almost on a daily basis interacting together, talking about their issues in a public space - a safe public space, if I might add.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should remind people Tahrir Square was the physical location, that big center square in Cairo, that attracted hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries, really, during the Arab Spring that unseated President Hosni Mubarak.</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: Absolutely. So this was in 2011 and continued for years after. And I feel that these virtual spaces that are now, you know, appearing on Facebook and so on are sort of like a satellite of Tahrir in a way that, you know, provides people with the same kind of camaraderie, the same kind of support, mutual exchange of ideas, but also affords them the anonymity and the safety that they need because right now the government is really clamping down on civil liberties and putting a lot of political activists in jail.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What do you think the upshot of all of this is? I mean, what do people do with this kind of online community? I mean, do you think it stops at individual self-help or is the use of these Facebook pages, is it in some way fomenting a larger kind of cultural or social change in Egypt?</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: Look, you know, most certainly anytime there is a collective endeavor, anytime there is collective action, there is also social change. And not only is this an expression of the need for certain kinds of services in the public sphere or certain kinds of safe spaces in the public sphere to express their opinion, but it's also a call for social change and for a future that is more interactive or more realistic in its way of dealing with social stigma and issues that are otherwise - you know, may be silenced or not given a voice in the public sphere.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Sherine Hafez is a professor at UC Riverside. She's also the author of a forthcoming book called "The Women Of The Midan: The Untold Stories Of Egypt's Revolutionaries." Sherine, thanks so much for talking with us.</s>SHERINE HAFEZ: Rachel, this was a pleasure. Thank you so much.

Last Sunday in Iraq a young teenage boy was captured before he could detonate an explosive belt on behalf of ISIS. Linda Wertheimer talks to terrorism expert John Horgan about the group's recruitment.

LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: ISIS is increasingly employing children to carry out acts of terrorism. Last Sunday in Iraq, a young teenage boy was captured before he could detonate an explosive belt. And authorities are still investigating whether another young teen was responsible for last weekend's wedding bombing in Turkey. While the use of children in warfare is not new, researchers say that ISIS has taken the notion of child soldiers to a new level, even bragging about employing children on their social media sites.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: John Hogan is a psychologist at Georgia State University. He's been studying terrorist groups for 20 years. He joins us now from Atlanta. Welcome to the program.</s>JOHN HORGAN: Thank you so much for having me.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Now, you are getting a lot of your information from ISIS websites. Tell us what you're seeing.</s>JOHN HORGAN: In contrast to, I suppose, most terrorist groups for whom allegations of child exploitation would be embarrassing, ISIS has very publicly embraced the use of children.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So who are these children, and how do they find their way to ISIS? Is this part of the outreach?</s>JOHN HORGAN: It's part of the outreach. I mean, one of the extraordinarily effective ways in which the Islamic State has managed to recruit so many is because of that outreach. And they have, in the last 18 months, paid particular attention to targeting not just lone, disaffected male Muslims or male Muslim converts, they have reached out to entire families to say it's OK. There is a place for your spouse and your kids here, and this is a package deal. We will find a role for everybody.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: It sounds as though they must have set up some kind of system for where the children sleep, what they do, what - do they study?</s>JOHN HORGAN: We - one of the things that really struck us in trying to make sense of all of this imagery, and we've put all of this in a rather elaborate database, which we're going to publish soon, is just how how systematic and structured this entire process is, from - or through which, rather, they progress these children from being merely passive bystanders to fully fledged, fully committed, mobilized fighters.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Could you just give us maybe a condensed version of that? You say that it starts off gently, perhaps with toys and treats attracting the children.</s>JOHN HORGAN: Toys and treats and it really is about trying to lessen any doubts or reduce fears that kids might have about what life in the Islamic State might be about. The next phase is schooling, and this is where kids are far more subject to intense indoctrination, which they don't really understand the ideology but they do parrot it. But it also brings the kids far closer to ISIS-specific personnel, so recruiters who are able to select kids out who might be showing aptitude for one activity or another. And this is where ISIS essentially creates prestige among these young kids at school. And they project the idea to them that greater things await should they be lucky enough to be accepted to go from the schools into a military training camp and stationed as part of the Islamic State's military activity.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: How do they move from taking the children, sort of encouraging them to go to school and giving them sweets and toys and all of that, how do they get from that to suicide bombing?</s>JOHN HORGAN: Suicide bombing is only one of many roles that these kids have fulfilled. I mean, by our estimates, we're looking at somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 children who have been indoctrinated, trained and mobilized over the past two years. But they don't have to work hard to convince the children to become martyrs. I mean, this is very much a process of intense psychological dynamics where utter obedience and complete allegiance to the Islamic State is expected.</s>JOHN HORGAN: There are numerous accounts of children who failed at training or who miss their parents too much and decided that, you know, this really wasn't for them. In some cases, in many cases in fact, those children were severely beaten and, in some cases, even executed. This is really all about providing points of no return. The children at a point here really don't have a choice. And it is fundamentally - this entire activity is based on coercion.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: John Horrigan is the co-author of a forthcoming book "Small Arms: Children & Terrorism." Thank you very much for talking to us.</s>JOHN HORGAN: Thank you for having me.

When the risk and mistrust outweigh the financial gain, who becomes a police officer? William Noel in Annapolis, Md., tells Rachel Martin about joining the force.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Becoming a police officer is not easy. It's a stressful job, heightened by recent tension between law enforcement and the public. So who would do it? This past month, three new officers were sworn in at Annapolis Police Department in Maryland. We're going to meet one of them.</s>WILLIAM NOEL: My name is William Noel, originally from Washington, D.C., and I'm a police officer with the City of Annapolis Police Department.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: When I first got to know Will, he was a personal trainer here in Washington, D.C., helping all sorts of people get and stay fit. One of his clients worked with the Secret Service, and he convinced Will to start a second career in law enforcement. Will and I have talked before about what's going on with race relations and policing in this country, so we decided to invite him in and have that conversation on the radio.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You happen to be African-American man who...</s>WILLIAM NOEL: ...Every day.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Every day, walking through life. Did you feel a different kind of weight or responsibility in talking about how police are interacting with communities of color?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: No. When I'm asked that, all I can do is to draw on my experiences. The early part of my childhood, I grew up in southeast Washington, D.C., and it was at a time right before, you know, crack took off and things like that. So the neighborhood was a little dicey, but being a child that young, I never knew any better. So I would think about when I saw the police come around. I never saw violence. I never saw people being mistreated.</s>WILLIAM NOEL: I saw people interact with the police, and I saw the police say what they had to say and I saw the residents say what they had to say, but everybody left in one piece. Moving on to high school, yeah, I had friends that may have been in some things they shouldn't have been into, but I never saw police mistreat them. So to see where things are right now, it's unfortunate.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: As part of your training, did you do any simulations where you were forced to confront a really perhaps emotionally complicated moment where things could get really tense really fast and how to de-escalate that situation?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: There are times where someone can be on a street and you're trying to talk to someone, but maybe they're impaired some kind of way and you can't bring them down there, and they react violently. There's no talking in a calm tone of voice at that point because they're not talking to you that way. But I would imagine everyone's first response is to, hey, let's try to figure this out, not to go in there and, you know, be G.I. Joe about it.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: In that context, do you think you bring something different to it because you are 38 years old and not 22?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: Yeah, it's helped because I've dealt with a myriad of people, and I could even trace that back to when I was a trainer. You trained people from multiple economic backgrounds, levels of education, and you've got to be able to communicate effectively to all of them in a manner that conveys expert, I'm in control of the situation, and you can trust me.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: There was this report out from the Justice Department about the Baltimore Police Department, an investigation - pretty damning - found that that department discovered police that were disproportionately targeting African-Americans, using excessive force against some juveniles. How do those revelations inform how you look at your own job? I mean, you're a new cop in Annapolis, which is not that far away from Baltimore.</s>WILLIAM NOEL: It informs me only in that you have to conduct yourself as if you're always being watched. I can only handle the things that I do. And I remind myself, even if I'm calling someone to ask them a follow-up question, conduct yourself like a professional. Ask your questions, answer their questions with respect. Baltimore just reminds you that someone's always watching you. And you want to finish each shift with no regrets on how you did your job. And one thing that I will say that I've learned throughout this process in training and since I've been working at the department is if there's something that you've done wrong or something that, you know, there might've been a mistake, own it. That's how I conduct myself.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you think that's part of why there is this so-called trust gap that even, you know, Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, has talked about? The fact that police departments and the communities they serve, that they're not getting each other, they don't trust each other?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: I mean, there's accountability to be had on both sides, whether it be citizens towards us or us toward citizens. The sooner everyone has accountability for their own actions and it's visible to one another, then you'll start seeing that. I think that's why you see a big push with community policing. That model's a big deal. You don't want to only be seen when shots got fired. You want to be seen just being in the community, being a part of what people do every day, showing up just to be a ray of sunshine. Not to sound cheesy, but if you only show up when shots get fired but not on the other days just to, hey, I'm around, everything good here - I think if the public sees more of that and can understand that we really are there to help, that builds trust as well.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What do your friends and family think about this new move?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: Oh, they think I'm crazy.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: (Laughter).</s>WILLIAM NOEL: The thing that seems to stick out in a lot of people's minds is my age.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Really?</s>WILLIAM NOEL: Yeah. I don't feel like I'm 38. You know, if I've had a good shave that day, you know, I don't - you know, I get carded sometimes, and it's fine. But overall, it's a tremendous amount of support. My department has had my back from day one. You know, I'm recovering from an injury, and they've never wavered in their support of me in getting healthy and, you know, getting out there. And, you know, I'm thankful for it.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Newly minted Annapolis, Md. Police Officer Will Noel. Will, thanks so much for talking with us.</s>WILLIAM NOEL: It is my pleasure. Thank you, Rachel.

For our series Hanging On, Linda Wertheimer speaks with Paul Katz. He's one of the organizers of the graduate student union just approved by the National Labor Relations board.

LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Time now for our series Hanging On, where we take a look at the economic pressures of American life. This week, being a graduate student. On Tuesday, in a case brought by Columbia University grad students, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that teaching assistants at private colleges have the right to form a union. The Columbia students were seeking to collectively bargain over things like compensation, health care and family benefits. Paul Katz, a third-year grad student in Latin American history, is one of the organizers of the Columbia effort. And he joins us from our New York bureau. Welcome to the program.</s>PAUL KATZ: Oh, thank you so much for having me.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Now, why do Columbia graduate students think it's necessary to organize?</s>PAUL KATZ: Well, fundamentally, it's a question of having a voice in our graduate experiences and primarily in our working conditions. We spend five, six, seven years of our lives pursuing both our own research and teaching and research assistantship at the university. This really is, I think, an important contribution to the function of the university, and we believe we deserve a say in our working conditions.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: How precarious an economic situation is it being a grad student, especially in a place like New York City?</s>PAUL KATZ: Well, really, the experience I can speak to most directly is my own. And that is, of course, living in one of the most expensive cities in the country. At a very basic level we have to spend, you know, an inordinate share of our income on rent. We basically just don't have a margin for error. You know, any kind of crisis or emergency is going to be very hard to address if you're living on, say, $28,000 a year.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: I understand you have a part-time job as a tour guide to help make ends meet?</s>PAUL KATZ: Indeed, yes. I work for a great company called Big Onion Tours. In fact, I'm just coming right now from leading a tour of the Lower East Side.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: And so this is something you do in your spare time, right?</s>PAUL KATZ: It is, yes. And while it is, you know, very much an enjoyable job and I appreciate it tremendously, I think the very existence of this company, which employs history graduate students from throughout New York City, is a testament to just how difficult it is to make ends meet as a grad student here.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Now, you're 30 years old. Is that right?</s>PAUL KATZ: Well, 29, about to turn 30.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So this is very different, I assume, from being a struggling 20-year-old undergraduate.</s>PAUL KATZ: Well, I mean, it feels like it ought to be, right? I mean, I suppose that's one of our frustrations is that I think when some people think about students in general they have in mind, you know, a college sophomore and a 19-year-old where, you know, certainly have a very high tolerance for making ends meet with, you know, very little in the way of resources. But, you know, many of us pursuing Ph.D.s are in our late 20s, in our early or mid-30s. And by this point, it would be nice to have a little bit more stability and security in our lives.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So what is the first thing you want to try to do - to get for the graduate students at Columbia?</s>PAUL KATZ: Well, our main interest, the thing that unites all of us across departments, is a desire to negotiate a binding contract with the administration. More specifically, though, you know, talking to people across campus, it's become clear that we do share certain common concerns. You know, front and center is health care. I think many of us are concerned about the limits of our student health care plan, which is basically identical to the one that undergraduates receive.</s>PAUL KATZ: We're concerned about the expense of adding dependents to our health plan, our lack of dental and vision coverage. More broadly, we're concerned about a lack of a grievance process - protections against, say, sexual harassment and assault. As long as we don't have clear procedures in place to deal with issues as they arise, it's very hard to feel secure in our lives.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: Paul Katz is a graduate student at Columbia University. Thank you very much for talking to us.</s>PAUL KATZ: Oh, thank you so much for having me.</s>LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: BJ Leiderman writes our theme music.

Many doubted whether the city, suffering unprecedented political and economic upheaval, could host such a large event. NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro tells Rachel Martin how it all played out.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And indeed, the closing ceremony of the Olympics is tonight. You can say one thing about these games - they have not lacked for drama. NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro has been covering the Olympics from outside the arenas. She joins us now to talk about how things went for the host city, Rio de Janeiro. Hi, Lulu.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Hi.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let's start with soccer briefly. I mean, we just heard Melissa's report there. It must have been so satisfying for Brazil to win this, right?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Oh my gosh, you have no idea. It was just a glorious way for these games to end for Brazil, you know, an amazing moment. My neighborhood erupted into cheers. There were fireworks over the city. You know, Brazil's had such a hard year politically, economically. It was just a great moment for them.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right, so let's talk about some of the hard stuff. Before the games even began, there was all this talk about, of course, the Zika outbreak, terrorism even, the water quality. Did these end up being issues in the games?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: You know, Zika and terrorism, thankfully not. Water quality did. You know, at least one Olympian got sick. Sailing teams did complain of trash in the bay slowing them down. And then there were those green pools in the aquatic center, if you'll remember, though they had apparently - that had something to do with people dumping the wrong chemicals in the water.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: You know, other challenges - empty seats, organizational problems with transport, food - it seemed that there was some sort of crisis, big or small, every single day. So that was the bad. What really elevated these games were the Brazilians themselves. You know, their hospitality, their joy. Many Brazilians in Rio really warmed to these games, embraced them, and that was beautiful to see.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK, we have to mention it, the scandal you cannot turn away from, try as you might. Ryan Lochte and what has ended up turning into a diplomatic incident. How big of a shadow did this cast over the games?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: It's still generating multiple news stories in the Brazilian press. You know, Lochte in an interview last night on NBC said, quote, he "over-exaggerated that story." He also gave an interview to Brazilian TV, and that's made headlines here all over again. He apologized. But, you know, the Lochte story really tapped into something here. Brazilians don't feel like Lochte's various apologies have really cut it, so I'm not sure he should be vacationing here anytime soon.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK, so now let's turn to the Paralympics also being held in Rio. But they're in a lot of trouble now. What's going on?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Yeah, you know, the Paralympic Committee announced unprecedented cuts to the event. Rio 2016 has simply run out of money, Rachel, and they're scaling back. Only 12 percent of tickets have been sold. So the question is why did they run out of cash? Why won't they open up their books to show what happened? And also, why was so little muscle put into promoting these Paralympics, which were such a success in London? That's what many people are asking themselves.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: The spokesman for Rio 2016 has denied reports that they took money from the Paralympic budget to pay for the Olympics. Lots of criticisms. We heard Britain's most prominent Paralympian, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, saying it sends out the message that the Paralympic Games doesn't mean as much to the organizing committee. And she warned that it risks making Paralympians into second-class citizens.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And just real briefly, Lulu, you live in Rio. You've been covering the buildup to the games. What's your take? Was this an Olympics that Brazilians could be proud of?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: I think it was, but I think it's a mixed review. And I'm going to let Brazilians speak for themselves on this. A new poll came out this morning, and it was ambivalent. Sixty-two percent of the population believe the Olympics brought more costs than benefits, and yet 57 percent believe it improved Brazil's image abroad. And I think that's what I've experienced here. People feel that the games could've been organized better. They know that the bill is going to come due. But they also feel that Brazil was presented in a positive way to the world, and they're extremely proud of that.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro in Rio. Thanks so much, Lulu.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: You're welcome.

It's hard to really know what life is like for prisoners in the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. NPR's Arun Rath got a rare tour of the prison, and tells Rachel Martin what he saw.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's hard to really know what life is like for prisoners in the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For years the Pentagon has allowed journalists to come down to watch the military tribunals, but it's rare to get a tour of the prison itself. NPR's Arun Rath is there now, and he has spent the weekend seeing Gitmo up close. Hi, Arun.</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Hi, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What did the U.S. military allow you to see on this visit?</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Well, we were allowed to have a tour of camps Five and Six. Camp Six is where most of the prisoners are kept, the most compliant prisoners, as they call them. They are allowed to live in communal living conditions, interact with each other, go out and play soccer on occasion. They have a garden there. We also saw Camp Echo, which is the transitional camp where prisoners are kept who are basically on their way out of Guantanamo. And we were able to see the detainee medical facility as well, along with the medical director there.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you got to see a little bit, anyway, of how these people, how these detainees spend their time. What struck you the most?</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Well, it was really powerful watching them through the gating and seeing, you know, these groups of four or five men praying together, just sort of living their life. But it was also very cut off. You know, it was hard to get a sense of what life was really like for them. I have to say the most powerful thing that struck me on this trip was getting to see some of the detainees' artwork.</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: I know it might sound odd, but the thing that just blew my mind was a beautiful model of an old sailing ship made from cardboard, bits of old cloth, discarded T-shirts. And, Rachel, it was magnificent. The detail was extraordinary. You'd think it's something that somebody built from a kit until you look at it up close to see the improvised materials it was made out of. It really kind of blew my mind.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This was a highly choreographed tour. The military was obviously letting you see what they wanted you to see. But we know Gitmo's history, and it's been - you know, there have been some horrific scenes there over the years - abuse by guards, abuse coming from prisoners. Did you see any evidence, lingering evidence, of this part of life in detention there?</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Well, the short answer is no. I mean, as you mentioned, this is a very scripted, very controlled tour. Camp X-Ray wasn't a part of this tour. Camp X-Ray is where the prisoners were first kept when they came to Guantanamo. One thing we did get to see, though - now, they don't give details anymore about hunger strikers, but did get the opportunity to talk with a senior medical officer - that's naval Captain Richard Quattrone - and asked him about the force feedings where they put a tube up the detainee's nose, down the back of his throat, to force-feed them nutritional supplements.</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: He described this as very humane. He said that prisoners were - the ones who were being force-fed mostly didn't need to be restrained. There were sitting calmly for it. And he made it sound like a fairly calm, humane procedure, although that's not the description we've heard from people who have been through it.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The prison population there has been dramatically reduced over the years. There are now 76 detainees left, right? What's their status?</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Of those 76 - more than 30 of those 76 had been cleared for transfer. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that the Obama administration is going to work very hard to transfer all of them, you know, as soon as they can. But that leaves us with around 40 people - the irreducible 40, you might call them - the ones who were in Camp Seven who we didn't get to see.</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: These are some of the ones who were on trial in the military commissions or considered too dangerous to release. That's the problem that we will have at the end of the day because there is no plan right now for what to do with them, and we're not hearing anything about any kind of plan for how to deal with that in the long term.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Arun Rath joining us on the line from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arun, thanks so much.</s>ARUN RATH, BYLINE: Thank you.

More than ever before, U.S. elections are a business opportunity. Social media companies are capitalizing on attention spent on the candidates.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: You may already feel bombarded with election news this morning, but if you've logged into Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat, you're likely to be inundated with even more. That's because for social media platforms, it's just good business. NPR's Scott Detrow has more on how tech companies are embracing the election.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Walking the halls of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, there were tech companies everywhere you looked.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: All right, so this is Connect with Skype at the RNC. It's a Skype booth. What it basically looks like is a little paneled off area where you can have a Skype call.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Skype, Twitter, Microsoft - it went on and on; same at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: And we are standing in the Oval Office.</s>CRYSTAL PATTERSON: Yeah. We have built a mini Oval Office for people to post on Instagram.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: That's Crystal Patterson who works on Facebook's political outreach team. This mini Oval Office was just one part of a larger lounge the company set up inside the Wells Fargo Center.</s>CRYSTAL PATTERSON: It feels very Facebooky (ph). It's very bright, open and colorful. More importantly, there's a lot of areas for people to create content, so people can go live pretty easily.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: And we should note that Facebook does pay NPR and other leading news organizations to produce video that run on the site. In downtown Philadelphia, Twitter was offering something very similar. Sitting at a table in the back, Twitter's Jenna Golden said the company was giving out free food, coffee and Wi-Fi.</s>JENNA GOLDEN: This is supposed to be home base for a host of different people, including our advertising clients, our media partners, any very important tweeters.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Why all the freebies and fancy displays? Because Twitter and Facebook are competing with each other, and every other social media company, for your time and attention. They both spent a lot of money to make sure that when people were reporting on the convention or sharing their convention experience, Facebook or Twitter would be a part of it. That makes sense to Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University.</s>TIM CALKINS: It really - it's true for any big event in a sense, but elections are a little different because they're huge events and the build-up commands a lot of attention, a lot of activity, and it goes on for a long time.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Cozying up to an election in order to get more attention for your company is nothing new and isn't limited to technology. Calkins says for years Kraft Macaroni & Cheese would make special election year pasta.</s>TIM CALKINS: So when the Republican convention was going on, they would have the, you know, elephant macaroni and when the Democratic convention was going on, they would have the donkey macaroni.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Social media is all about conversation. And this year, there's no bigger conversation topic than a contentious high-profile national election. But for social media companies, and especially Twitter, there's one big factor that's much more effective than trendy VIP hangouts at conventions. It's the fact that Donald Trump won the Republican nomination with a communications strategy that relied heavily on tweets.</s>TIM CALKINS: And that's exactly the sort of message that Twitter wants to get out there. You know, they'd love to go to companies and say, you know what? You no longer even need to worry about traditional advertising because today you can just rely on us.</s>SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: So all the time that Facebook and Twitter spent wooing people at the convention, the truth is most of those people were already probably spending most of the day staring at their phones waiting to see what Donald Trump had to say next. Scott Detrow, NPR News.

Bennett College in North Carolina, a historically black college, lost its appeal to retain its accreditation, but then won a temporary reprieve after filing suit.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: If you tuned in last weekend, you may remember our conversation with Phyllis Worthy Dawkins, the president of Bennett College in Greensboro, N.C. The school, one of two remaining historically black women's colleges in the country, has been struggling financially but just pulled off an eye-popping fundraising drive. This past week, the college made its case to maintain its accreditation. Bethany Chafin of member station WFDD tells us what happened.</s>BETHANY CHAFIN, BYLINE: Last Friday was a big day for Bennett College. It was announced that the school lost its appeal to save its accreditation. Within hours, though, Bennett revealed it was filing a lawsuit against the accrediting body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, or SACS. During these legal proceedings, Bennett will remain accredited. President Phyllis Worthy Dawkins says the community is experiencing mixed emotions right now.</s>PHYLLIS WORTHY DAWKINS: The students, faculty and staff and alumni are taking it hard and rightfully so. We need to give them space to internalize that, yes, it's bad news and good news on the same day. We are accredited, and we need to give them that time to vent their frustrations.</s>BETHANY CHAFIN, BYLINE: Bennett has been fighting the accreditation battle since 2016, when it was put on probation due to a lack of financial resources. The school has struggled with declining enrollment, and as a private institution, it's heavily dependent on incoming tuition. Instead of taking the school off of probation in December of 2018, SACS voted to remove Bennett's accreditation. The school appealed the decision.</s>BETHANY CHAFIN, BYLINE: To strengthen its case, the college mounted a giant fundraising effort called Stand With Bennett. The campaign gained national attention and ultimately raised more than $9 million, well over the goal of 5 million. School officials also outlined other steps forward, including a five-year strategic plan. The mood was upbeat when final fundraising numbers came in. Many thought this would be enough to convince the creditors, but it wasn't.</s>BETHANY CHAFIN, BYLINE: In Friday's decision, the appeals committee said Bennett had failed to show resources that demonstrate a stable financial base. The lawsuit doesn't come as too much of a surprise. President Phyllis Worthy Dawkins had said throughout the appeals process that if the school lost, it would pursue legal action. Board of Trustees chair and State Senator Gladys Robinson says the fight is worth it and so is a Bennett education.</s>GLADYS ROBINSON: I know what it does for young women in terms of building self-esteem, in terms of teaching them how to move broadly across a spectrum of people and issues, et cetera.</s>BETHANY CHAFIN, BYLINE: Meanwhile, Bennett College is seeking alternate accreditation. For NPR News, I'm Bethany Chafin in Greensboro, N.C.

Suzanne DiMaggio of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has been speaking with North Korean officials. She tells NPR's Michel Martin what to expect from Thursday's summit in Hanoi.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Hours after Michael Cohen is to testify on Capitol Hill, President Trump will be holding his second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi. This morning, the president looked forward to the meeting, tweeting, "great relationship with Chairman Kim," unquote. Now, Kim is already on his way to Vietnam, making the long journey in his special armored train. For insight on what we might expect from the Trump-Kim summit, we've called Suzanne DiMaggio. She is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As a private citizen, she has participated in informal discussions with North Korean officials. Welcome. Thank you so much for talking with us.</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: It's my pleasure. Thanks for having me.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now, we've just been speaking with Congressman Jim Himes. He's a member of the House Intelligence Committee that's preparing to grill the president's former personal lawyer. And I mention that because we were wondering how aware of these issues, these domestic troubles, if you want to call them that, is Kim Jong Un? And does that affect President Trump's negotiating position?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: I think it's a very important question. In my estimation, I think President Trump is coming to this second summit in a much weakened position than the first summit. He's facing more intense scrutiny from a now Democratic-led House of Representatives. He's losing the battle to secure his signature domestic policy - a wall on the southern border. Michael Cohen's congressional testimony is cued up to happen while the summit is taking place. So we can be sure that the North Koreans follow our politics very closely, and there's no doubt that they will take full advantage of President Trump's vulnerabilities.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can you tell me a little bit more about these informal so-called track two negotiations with North Korea? Tell me a little bit more about, like, what is your role?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: Well, track one, in case it's unclear, is normal everyday government-to-government discussions. But because we don't have normalized relations with North Korea, a lot of that doesn't happen. And, in fact, until months ago, nothing was taking place. So track two are informal discussions where usually private citizens and experts get together to talk out about these issues in a setting that is relaxed, where you can have a candid conversation.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What's it like?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: Well, with the North Koreans, it's very - can be a bit stilted. They're not comfortable with open debate. They don't express different opinions among themselves. They really come to the table with one line, and that is the line from their dear leader, Kim Jong Un. But it gives you a chance to have some insight into what they see as their threat perceptions, how they view the world, what they think they can get out of negotiations, what their priorities are.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, let's - getting back to President Trump's priorities, the president has said he's in no rush to get North Korea to denuclearize as long as it maintains its moratorium on nuclear testing. And there are reports that the president is now more focused on getting a peace treaty to formalize the end of hostilities some 65 years after the Korean War. How do you understand the president's goals?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: Well, it appears that President Trump realizes that the strategy of demanding that the North Koreans denuclearize up front before they receive any concessions is not going to work. So instead, what I think is happening is a more realistic approach, what I would call a phased approach. In other words, we do something, they do something. And I think that makes a great deal of sense.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And I don't know whether this is relevant, but the president has signaled that he's interested in getting a Nobel Prize. There was that report that the administration had asked Japan's prime minister to nominate him and that the Japanese didn't deny the report. Does this affect what President Trump might ask for during the talks?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: Well, knowing President Trump and how he is so guided by how he appears in his own glory, I think it does. But I - we could still eke out some good progress. The peace declaration, I think, is a no-brainer for us to put on the table because it's not something that legally binds us to anything in particular. It simply says that the Korean War is over, and it is, it's been 70 years. For the North Koreans, it's highly symbolic. And it goes a long way to addressing why they got nuclear weapons in the first place - because they are fearful of an attack by us, a regime change operation. And this is a first step towards saying that situation is no longer on the table.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So tell me about Kim's goals as you understand them. What are you hearing from the North Koreans that you've spoken with?</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: Their top priority, without question, is some reduction in sanctions. The North Koreans and the South Koreans have made remarkable progress in their reconciliation efforts. And they really have now cued up several what they called joint economic projects. So in order to move forward, they need exemptions from certain sanctions that exist now. And I think that this should be put on the table to (inaudible) them to give up some concessions on their side on denuclearization. I think the time is right to do that.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is Suzanne DiMaggio. She's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She's been holding conversations with North Korean officials in the run-up to Thursday a summit in Singapore between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Suzanne DiMaggio, thanks so much for talking with us.</s>SUZANNE DIMAGGIO: It was great to be with you. Thank you.

The French city of Lille has cancelled its annual flea market — an event that usually attracts millions of visitors and which dates from medieval times — because of security concerns.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: In France, many summer events have been scaled back and even cancelled over security fears. One of the biggest events to be suspended this week was Europe's largest antique fair and flea market, held in the northern town of Lille. What's known as the Braderie of Lille will not take place this year, and NPR's Eleanor Beardsley visited Lille to see how people were feeling about it.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: I'm in Lille's Grand Place. The Braderie of Lille, the giant street fair, has been going on here since the Middle Ages. I always wanted to do a story on it and was actually planning to do that this year. And in a sign of the times, the story I'm instead doing is about how the braderie had to be cancelled because of heightened fears of terrorism.</s>MARTINE AUBRY: (Speaking French).</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: With tears in her eyes Friday, Lille's mayor, Martine Aubry, said the decision was extremely painful, but she had no choice. The city simply could not guarantee the safety of more than 2 million people who pour into Lille for the three-day flea market festival at the beginning of each September. Lille native Jeremie Vasseur says he and his girlfriend are disappointed, but they understand.</s>JEREMIE VASSEUR: (Through interpreter) I think there's a new reality now. There's a sort of fear settling in. People are afraid of what might happen. Even before the fair was cancelled, we were wondering if we would go considering what just happened in Nice.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: The July 14 attack in Nice by a truck driver who plowed through a crowd, killing 85 people, and the murder a week later in Normandy of an elderly Catholic priest by two Islamist extremist teenagers has put France on edge just as things were beginning to return to normal after the country successfully hosted the month-long European soccer championship. Twenty-year-old Lille university student Marion Fontaine says the braderie's cancellation shocked her.</s>MARION FONTAINE: (Through interpreter) The only time it was cancelled before was under the German occupation, so the message is really negative and difficult to accept. We're not exactly at war now, but we're in some kind of situation we've never experienced, and we don't seem to be able to find a solution.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: Some in Lille's business community were angered by the cancellation because they say they weren't even consulted. The head of Lille's chamber of commerce called the braderie's cancellation an economic and cultural disaster.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: Chef Frederic Dumont is cooking up a big pot of mussels at a hopping brasserie just off Lille's central square. Moules-frites, or mussels with a side of fries, is one of the braderie's traditional dishes. Some 500 tons of mussels are consumed every year during the event.</s>FREDERIC DUMONT: (Speaking French).</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: "We have Dutch and French varieties, and we steam them up in white wine with parsley, thyme and laurel," says Dumont. The chef says moules-frites became a staple in this region after World War I because it was cheaper to feed workers mussels than meat.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: (Speaking French).</s>DIDIER PAPART: (Speaking French).</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: OK.</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: As I sit down to enjoy a moules-frites of my own, I strike up a conversation with my neighbor, Lille doctor Didier Papart. He says the braderie should never have been cancelled.</s>DIDIER PAPART: (Speaking French).</s>ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: "Terrorism can happen anywhere," he says. "We should've maintained the braderie. By cancelling it, we handed the terrorists a victory. What a shame." Eleanor Beardsley, NPR News, Lille.

Colombia closed its bridges into Venezuela a day after attempts to get relief supplies across the border ended in violence. Vice President Mike Pence meets with Venezuela's opposition leader Monday.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now back to the Colombia-Venezuela border, where there were bloody clashes yesterday between forces loyal to the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, and opponents trying to get aid into the country. For some Venezuelans who've spent years peacefully opposing Maduro, the violent confrontation at the border may have been the last straw. Reporter John Otis has this report.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Scores of Venezuelans were injured during the failed aid delivery operation. What's more, two trucks carrying food and medicine were burned on a border bridge. Today, the remains of the trucks were still smoldering.</s>UNIDENTIFIED CROWD: (Speaking Spanish).</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Meanwhile, about two dozen Venezuelans prepared Molotov cocktails. It was a tiny group compared to yesterday's crowd, but the men vowed to once again take on the Venezuelan military.</s>UNIDENTIFIED CROWD: (Speaking Spanish)</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Colombian police on horseback urged them to turn around. The men pressed forward towards the border but were eventually stopped by heavily armed Venezuelan troops. It was an all-too-common scenario that frustrates many Venezuelans. They claim that Maduro clings to power with the backing of the military. Indeed, yesterday's drive to push aid across the border was also an effort to convince the armed forces to break with Maduro. At first, it seemed to work.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: About 60 Venezuelan troops defected on Saturday, including these two policewomen who dashed across a bridge to the Colombian side. But the bulk of the Venezuelan armed forces remained loyal to Maduro. And now some opposition activists insist that outside help is needed.</s>PATRICIA: (Speaking Spanish).</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: "We have a lot of willpower but no weapons," says Patricia (ph), a protester who only gives her first name because she fears reprisals from Venezuelan officials. "We need international help," she says. Juan Guaido, who is recognized by the U.S. and about 50 other nations as Venezuela's legitimate leader, has also turned his focus away from the border and towards the international community.</s>JUAN GUAIDO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: He told reporters that he will meet Monday in Colombia with Latin American leaders and Vice President Mike Pence. He later tweeted that all options must be open to free Venezuela, a phrase seen by some as suggesting military intervention. President Trump has made similar comments. But while many governments have turned their backs on Maduro, there is far less enthusiasm for sending in troops.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: For NPR News, I'm John Otis on the Colombia-Venezuela border.

Olympic runner Brenda Martinez had an unlikely path to the 2016 games. She grew up running in basketball shoes and nearly missed qualifying. She tells NPR's Ailsa Chang how she persevered.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Next week, Brenda Martinez takes her place at the starting line in Rio, but she nearly didn't make it to the Olympics. The runner suffered a devastating loss last month in the 800-meter final at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials when her foot tangled with another runner and she tripped and fell. But Martinez bounced back days later to qualify in the 1,500-meter race by three hundredths of a second. She joins us now on Skype from Rio de Janeiro. Thank you so much for joining us, Brenda.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: Thank you for having me.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So there's this photo of you that shows you literally throwing yourself across the finish line. Did you know at that very point that you had actually qualified for the Olympics?</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: I think I had kind of, like, a feeling that maybe I made the team. I just wasn't sure. But I think when I was on the ground, one of my teammates, Jenny Simpson, actually ran up to me and the crowd was just so loud, so I kind of just assumed that it was me. And I think once they delivered the good news, yeah, I just started crying. But, yeah, it was a good day.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: You started running when you were really, really young. How old were you?</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: I was 5 years old when I started club track.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: What?</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: And the reason - yeah. At a young age, I was pretty - pretty bad. Like, my mom would actually hit me with a belt. And I think there was times where I just outrun her, and I think she just knew I - she needed to do something about that energy that I had. And, yeah, so she signed me up for club track, and I didn't actually know that we were racing. Like, I didn't understand that concept. Like, I didn't even have, like, the proper shoes. I think I showed up with, like, basketball shoes or something. But, yeah, I mean, I've learned a lot since then, and it's pretty much my life.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Yeah, you mentioned that you didn't have the right shoes when you were little, and you've been pretty open about your family's financial struggles when you were trying to train.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mean, at a young age, like, you don't realize - or I didn't see them as problems. Like, I didn't even think to say, like, oh, I can't afford running shoes. Like, my parents just always found a way. Like, my dad would do, like, side jobs. He's pretty handy, so he would do plumbing or landscaping and - but my mom would also get donations with masa. It's what you make for the tamales. And so she would get, like, a store - I think it was, like, in Ontario, Calif., - and they would donate a lot of masa.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: And she would buy the meat, and she would actually wake up at 3 in the morning and start, you know, prepping the tamales because it's pretty much, like, an all-day process, especially if you're going to make a lot. So that pretty much funded a lot of my trips. And they never complained. They just knew, like, hey, this is what we have to do for our kids. And I feel like they just planted that seed that you can always find a way.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: I now hear that your - you found a way to help other up-and-coming runners who are struggling financially, too.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: Yeah. You know, my coach, Dr. Joe Vigil, always, like, planted that seed in my head. Like, hey, whatever you receive, like, you got to, you know, share it with the world. And he gave me the idea of actually having a girls camp, and I picked 10 girls and then I host them up in Big Bear Lake, Calif., where I live. And it's up in the mountains, and we provide them with three pairs of shoes, two full outfits, and then we actually do clinics and seminars. And we cover topics of, like, happiness, positive thinking, injury prevention and whatnot. And I think it's a good thing. The girls have a really good time, and you actually see them become friends after camp, so I like that, too.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: That's really cool.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: Yeah.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So you have some time before the 1,500-meter finals. It's a week from Tuesday. What is your focus in the next week? Like, how do you mentally prepare for a competition like that?</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: I'm fit, so I'm confident in the training that I'm doing right now. It's just about maintaining, not doing anything crazy. I'm just going to hang out in my hotel, have my tea, you know, write and read. And, you know, I'm going to treat it like a business trip. I'm not here to have a good time. I'm here to represent the U.S. and in the best possible way.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Brenda Martinez will be running in the 1,500-meter race in the Olympics. It was such a pleasure talking to you. Thank you so much, Brenda.</s>BRENDA MARTINEZ: Thank you.

Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut tells NPR's Michel Martin what Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee want to hear when former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testifies on Thursday.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to spend a good part of the program today looking ahead to some important events coming up this week, and we'll start with that long-awaited testimony on Capitol Hill by President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Tuesday, Cohen is scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The following day, he is to testify in a public session before the House Oversight and Reform Committee and Thursday in closed session before the House Intelligence Committee. One of the Democrats on that panel, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, is with us now.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Congressman, thank you so much for joining us.</s>JIM HIMES: Happy to be here.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What does the House Intelligence Committee want to learn from Michael Cohen? We know that he'll be testifying before some other committees, but what does your committee want to learn?</s>JIM HIMES: Well, remember Michael Cohen has been sentenced to three years in prison for lying to our committee. And so (laughter), of course, the first thing we'll want to do is go back and look at the questions that he felt the need to be dishonest about and ask them again - and then, of course, explore why he felt he needed to be dishonest about that. Now, a lot of it, of course, had to do with Trump Tower Moscow. My guess is that the special counsel has probably looked into that in a lot of detail. But, you know, we're going to, I think, learn a lot more about that.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, as you noted, he's pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in previous testimony. Do you have confidence that what you're going to hear is truthful now?</s>JIM HIMES: Well, of course, that will be what Republicans say constantly when he gives his testimony. Because you can bet when he gives his open testimony, here's a guy who has nothing to lose. You know, he's already going to prison. He did cooperate, we believe, obviously, truthfully with the special counsel. Otherwise, he might have wound up like Paul Manafort, who did not testify and work constructively with the special counsel. So he doesn't have a lot to lose.</s>JIM HIMES: And, of course, he's got every incentive, having been attacked by the president over and over again, having been called a rat, having really been humiliated by the president - my guess is that he's going to come clean about what he knows about the president's business practices, you know, what he saw.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm still trying to understand what it is that you hope to learn in the committee. Like, what do you hope is the sort of the goal of having Michael Cohen testify? What do you think's going to happen on Thursday that will advance what it is that everyone's trying to find out?</s>JIM HIMES: I think what's useful to remember is how the congressional investigations are different from Bob Mueller's investigation. Bob Mueller's investigation is under the auspices of the Department of Justice. He has all of the tools available to him that any investigation would have - grand jury, subpoenas, that sort of thing. So Bob Mueller is really about identifying whether anybody anywhere committed a crime.</s>JIM HIMES: That's not where the two congressional committees are focused. We as intelligence committees, of course, are focused on, what is the Russian nexus? You know, how did Russia not just hack into servers at the DNC and, you know, reach out to George Papadopoulos, but what else did Russia do? It's up to the Congress to really paint a picture to the American people of what the Russians did to compromise the election of 2016.</s>JIM HIMES: So to your question about Michael Cohen, I think we need to understand from him any other possible contact he might have had with Russia, what he knows, who he talked to and what was said with respect to this Moscow tower. Because you know that the Kremlin - when Donald Trump is running for president, and the Kremlin knows that he wants to build a big tower in Moscow, you know that they probably thought hard about that and probably sent people to have contact with Trump's people. So it's really that - you know, Russia-centered questions that the Congress needs to focus on.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So finally, your committee chairman, Adam Schiff, said today that House Democrats will subpoena special counsel Mueller's report if necessary. Now, the new attorney general, William Barr, has said he wants to be as transparent as possible. But also, under the special counsel regulations, a report that goes public would be a report by the attorney general. So he gets the report, and then he decides, I assume, what becomes public. So, at the end of the day, how much of the special counsel's findings do you expect to see and do you think we in the public will actually see?</s>JIM HIMES: Well, we really are going to hold the attorney general to his pledge to make as much of it public as possible. Now, there's two concerns that are real concerns. We don't want, you know, any sources or methods or investigative sources or methods compromised. Fair enough. And it is the tradition of the Department of Justice, of course, to protect people who might have been investigated but who aren't being charged. Fair enough. Those are problems, I think, that are solvable.</s>JIM HIMES: What is essential is that because the Mueller investigation has consumed American politics because we have been treated to something unimaginable three years ago, which is the president the United States throwing mud on a man of the stature and the integrity of Bob Mueller and the Department of Justice and the FBI and the CIA, the only way we get out of this awful political moment where the DOJ and the FBI and Bob Mueller have been dragged through the mud is for us to see the work product and for the American people to have the catharsis, if you will, of knowing the truth.</s>JIM HIMES: So you can bet, just as Adam Schiff said today, that we will lean as representatives of the American public very heavily into making sure that the truth, whatever it may be - whether it exonerates Donald Trump or not that that truth gets out there for the American people to examine.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He represents Connecticut's 4th District, and he sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Congressman Himes, thank you so much for talking to us.</s>JIM HIMES: Thank you very much.

A lot has happened since President Trump met with Russia's President Putin in Helsinki on Monday.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News I'm Ailsa Chang sitting in for Rachel Martin. By almost any measure, Donald Trump's last few days have been pretty terrible - a war of words with the military community, a back and forth with his own party over endorsements, a rush of prominent Republican defections and polls that give his opponent a healthy lead. But about that opponent - Hillary Clinton hasn't had the greatest couple of days either. And joining me now is Ron Elving, senior editor on the Washington desk. Good morning, Ron.</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: Good morning, Ailsa.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So while Trump was having this terrible, horrible, very bad week, Clinton was giving some dicey answers to a question she's been asked over and over again about her email server.</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: Yes, and there's really no quick recap of all those answers, and that's part of the problem. They tend to gloss over key facts or wander off into legalistic language. The other part of the problem is the problem and that is that she takes the FBI decision not to indict her or prosecute her and says that means everything she said on the subject is now more or less officially truthful. And that's just not the case.</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: And on Friday, when she was speaking with a group of minority journalists and letting them ask her questions in a news conference kind of a format, she referred to her earlier answer about James Comey calling her answers truthful as a short circuit kind of an answer. Well, that didn't really seem to please anybody.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Well, what's the answer she should be giving?</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: Her supporters and her partisans are distressed that she doesn't have a short one, you know, just a few well-practiced sentences. Why not just say I did this, Director Comey said that, we agreed about some things, we disagreed about some things, and move on? I didn't get indicted, so it's really not that serious. Now, you know what's a real problem she might say at that point? It's inviting the Russians to hack into the United States and interfere with our election or something else of that nature. But she doesn't seem to be able to get there.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: In that same press conference you referenced from last Friday where she defended herself about these, you know, about her response about the emails, she seemed to also falter on some real softballs. What is it about the press conference format that's so hard for her?</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: She seems - she seems to have trouble getting comfortable with even one reporter in a one-on-one situation, and when you get a room full of them, it seems to unnerve her, or at least it has in the past. And when she was asked on Friday about meaningful conversations that she had had with black people in her life, she started talking about her staff rather than mentioning, say, the president of the United States or any of those mothers of young men who were - been killed in gun violence that she has met and had long conversations with. She just didn't seem to go to her own strengths in that instance and in many others like that.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So we've also talked about Trump's bad week, but has the race really changed in a permanent way?</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: We won't know that for some weeks, but things do seem to be resonating in a different way. And some of the things that Donald Trump has been saying for a very long time suddenly seem to be falling on fresh ears, and people are reacting to them in a different way from what we saw before the conventions.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: NPR's Ron Elving. Thank you so much, Ron.</s>RON ELVING, BYLINE: Thank you, Ailsa.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Washington Post religion reporter Julie Zauzmer about two major religious conferences held this weekend.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Two major faith groups gathered this weekend to discuss what could be sweeping reform. At the Vatican, Catholic leaders wrapped up a four-day summit on clerical sex abuse. And in St. Louis, leaders of the United Methodist Church, one of the country's largest Protestant denominations, held a conference on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings. Together, they represent more than 1 billion worshippers around the world, and the outcomes could have significant implications for how congregants view church leadership. To walk us through what happened, we've invited Washington Post religion reporter Julie Zauzmer. She's with us now in our studios in Washington, D.C.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Welcome. Thank you for joining us.</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: Thanks so much for having me.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let's start first with the Vatican summit on child sex abuse that started on Thursday. What's happened since then?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: It's been an intense few days - 190 Catholic leaders from the church around the world discussing the problem of sexual abuse and what to do about it. They're wrapping up without very many concrete suggestions but a lot of bishops promising to go back home and come up with solutions in their own countries.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, you know, well, Pope Francis called for a, quote, "all-out battle on clerical sex abuse." So what did that actually mean? I take it he's getting very mixed reactions.</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: Yes. He gave his address this morning, which would have been the time to declare specific policies that he's changing. And he did not do that. At the beginning of this summit, he distributed a list of 21 suggestions he has for concrete reforms or discussion points for how to get to those reforms. The bishops are going to take those home. But this did not result in a worldwide policy change.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you have any sense of why? I know that this is all very new, and these remarks were just delivered. But given how high the expectations were for this meeting, this seems like a very oddly ambiguous conclusion. Is there any sense of why?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: I think he knew all along that they weren't going to be able to reach something that - a solution that works for the entire world in a four-day meeting. He had said beforehand, lower your expectations. If you look at the United States, the United States is a very good example here of a region-specific goal where back in November, the U.S. bishops all got together, and they wanted to address the question of accountability of bishops. If a bishop does something wrong, what do you do about that?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: That's not the question in other parts of the world. In some parts of the world, the question is child marriage, for example. There are very different goals when it comes to sexual abuse in different countries. And the U.S. bishops are basically leaving at the same place where they came in. They're leaving with a statement today saying, OK. We had a good meeting. We're going to meet again in June, and we're going to deal with bishop accountability because that's what we wanted to do all along. I think a lot of the bishops are returning to their home countries to deal with their specific issues.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So now let's go to St. Louis, where leaders of the United Methodist Church are deciding whether to permit openly LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings. And obviously, this is a very complicated issue. There are lots of different proposals on the table. But briefly, could you tell us what's the status quo? Because I think people know that in some parts of the country, there are LGBTQ clergy. There are same-sex weddings performed. In other parts of the country, not. What's the discussion here - whether to create a national standard, an international standard?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: Exactly. If you read the United Methodist Church "Book Of Discipline," the letter of the law right now says no gay clergy, no gay weddings. Of course, as you said, there are bishops across the United States who pretty openly ignore that, and there are plenty of gay clergy in the United Methodist Church who perform plenty of gay weddings. The question is - it's not sustainable. The question is, what are they going to do going forward? And the big question is, should they split the church?</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What are the different options that they're considering?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: There are several options which they can modify as they go. One option is to keep their traditional straight couples only definition of marriage and indeed double down on that and punish congregations that don't obey it. A second option is to split the church into three separate denominations - one that affirms LGBT people, one that doesn't and one that lets each church decide for themselves. A third option is to let each church decide for itself worldwide. A fourth option that is somewhat on the table is to remove the language entirely about the morality of same-sex marriage, thereby sort of tacitly saying that we do approve of this and that this is a positive good for our church.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you have any sense of where this debate is going? And I apologize if I'm asking you to speculate.</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: I think that there is tremendous desire to get through this meeting with an answer. They've been putting off this question for a long time. There are a lot of Methodist leaders who want to by Tuesday night have a real solution. What that solution's going to be - I think a very popular plan is the - called the one church plan, where they would remain united but would allow each individual local congregation to just choose for themselves whether to do gay weddings and whether to ordain gay clergy, so they stay a denomination without really reaching an answer on the morality of this. But there's obviously other plans that are drastically different.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, finally, do you see any kind of overlap here in terms of how these religious groups' polities are dealing with these issues?</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: I think this week is a very good reminder for me and probably for many others who follow the religion world fairly closely that these institutions still matter - that we talk a lot about people becoming less affiliated and finding their own spirituality. When you see these huge, very institutional, very rigid organized meetings of the leaders of the Catholic Church, of the Methodist Church, you remember that policy still shapes people's lives, that the policies that come out of these very organized, systematic meetings are going to determine how a victim of sexual abuse in a country where there's no process for reporting that abuse - how that victim can come forward. These policies are going to determine whether people can get married in the churches they love and grew up in. These institutions still shape our day-to-day existence.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Julie Zauzmer, religion reporter for The Washington Post.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Julie, thank you so much.</s>JULIE ZAUZMER: Thank you.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently announced her plan for affordable, universal childcare. Columnist Katha Pollit tells NPR's Michel Martin why universal childcare should top the Democratic agenda.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: At a rally yesterday, presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren laid out her plan for universal child care, a plan aimed at increasing access for families across income levels.</s>ELIZABETH WARREN: So under this proposal, millions of families could send their kids for free, and the cost would be capped at 7 percent of income for all other families.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Senator Warren hopes the plan will address an ongoing-but-somehow-little-discussed complaint of millions of American families - the lack of affordable high-quality child care. One year of child care in Massachusetts, for example, Senator Warren's home state, is about $17,000. But that's not just a Massachusetts problem. According to a New York Times poll, child care costs are the No. 1 reason fewer people are having children. Katha Pollitt wrote about this in The New York Times. She says child care is a pressing issue and should top the Democratic agenda. She's with us now from New York. Katha Pollitt, thanks so much for joining us.</s>KATHA POLLITT: Thanks so much for having me, Michel.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So in Senator Warren's plan, the federal government would pour a lot of money into quality child care. Is this the right move?</s>KATHA POLLITT: I think it is. You know, so many other countries have very big and excellent child care systems like, for example, France. And I think we should be able to do that here.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: If the system is so flawed today though, why do you think it hasn't gotten more attention from policymakers, you know, across the spectrum? I mean, Hillary Clinton, for example, I mean, the first woman to win the major party nomination for president, it wasn't a priority. I mean, she did address it at some point, but it wasn't something that people associate with Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Why do you think it is that this issue has not gotten more attention?</s>KATHA POLLITT: There are several reasons why it hasn't taken off more. One is child care is a very important issue for a specific time in your life. You don't realize that this is going to be a problem until you have a baby. And then four years later, or if you have more than one child, maybe six years later or seven years later, it's over. And it's sort of like childbirth. It's very important while it's happening, and then it's finished, and you don't need to think about it again.</s>KATHA POLLITT: So I think partly it's that parents, while they're in the thick of it, they're too tired and too preoccupied to be political activists. I think another reason, though, is in America, we have a lot of hostility towards social programs. We don't want to spend a lot of money on it. Look. They're always trying to cut Social Security. They're always trying to cut Medicaid. Those are the things that benefit very a powerful constituency - older people. So I think that our hereditary bias against large social programs really serves parents very poorly.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Talk a little bit more, if you would, about why you think this is a significant issue beyond the - how can I put this? - the sort of personal distress of of individuals who find it very stressful for this particular period in their lives. I mean, why do you think that there's an issue that, in your view, should command everybody's attention?</s>KATHA POLLITT: Well, not having child care means that women can't go to work who want to go to work and whose families need that income. And that means a lot of women end up with kind of jerry-built arrangements and they fall apart. And then those women can be fired, which is completely legal. I mean, workers have very little protection in this country. Lack of stable, affordable child care is one of the reasons that women's work force participation has stalled even though women's education has increased.</s>KATHA POLLITT: So you've got a lot of women who are unhappily at home, which is something we don't hear that much about. And what that all means is that when women do go back to work, they don't get back to where they were. They have lost Social Security. They've lost a lot of the good things that come when you are working and earning a steady income.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: One question I have for you, though, is do these proposals in some ways fight each other? I mean, on the one hand, progressives are supporting a much higher minimum wage than is required in many states, a $15 minimum wage. How then does that comport with the desire to have more accessible child care? I mean, child care workers are notoriously underpaid as it is. How do progressives reconcile what could be actually kind of opposing ideas?</s>KATHA POLLITT: Well, I don't think they are opposing ideas. Obviously, quality child care will be expensive, but this is a very rich country. So I think, you know, there's always money for things that you really want. And if this is something we really want, we will figure out how to pay for it.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But on the other hand, there are people who say, look, if you can't, you know, then don't have kids. I mean, that is an argument that people would make. They say, look, you know what? If you can't afford to take care of the kids, then you shouldn't have kids.</s>KATHA POLLITT: Well, I think there's a lot that's wrong with that. And one is that having children is something that is pretty basic to most people's sense of what life is all about. And I don't think you can just say, oh, if you don't make $50,000 a year or $70,000 a year or whatever, you can't have a child. I mean, what are we saying, that the working class, in addition to every other problem they have, should be this class of childless single people? I mean, that doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, children are our future.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Katha Pollitt. She's a columnist for The Nation, and she was kind of to join us from New York. Katha Pollitt, thank you so much for talking to us.</s>KATHA POLLITT: Thank you so much.

The International Olympic Committee is adding five sports to the Tokyo 2020 games. Olympic historian David Wallechinsky tells us which sports used to be in the Games and which he'd want to bring back.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Track and field is, of course, a staple of the summer Olympics. It's been around since the very beginning, but new sports campaign to get added or re-added all the time. And earlier this week, the International Olympic Committee approved five new sports for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, including skateboarding and surfing.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: The International Olympic Committee decided that it was important to expand the kind of sports that were included in the Olympics to make them more relevant around the world and also to a youth audience and a TV audience.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: That's David Wallechinsky. He's the president of the International Society of Olympic Historians.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: We don't really know how long these different sports will last. But it would appear that a sport can be included for one Olympics, two Olympics and then removed.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Which made us wonder how many sports have suffered that fate.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: The plunge for distance, swimming obstacle race, polo.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Rope climbing.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Not the most telegenic sport considering it takes them less than three seconds to get there.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: And golf, which is back this year after a century-long absence.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: At the 1900 women's golf, there was one paying spectator.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: But the one Wallechinsky was saddest to see go...</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Tug of war.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: It made a couple of Olympic appearances but then was removed after some controversy.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: There was an argument between the Americans and the British because the rules said you have to wear normal shoes. Well, the British police showed up in their work boots, and they said, well, that's what we normally wear. The Americans said that that was cheating. And so to avoid all these horrible controversies, tug of war was dropped from the Olympics.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Wallechinsky says tug of war should be brought back. It's relatable. It's simple.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: You pull the other team across the line. You win.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: But if the IOC really wants to appeal to the masses, it should accept a sport that nearly everyone plays or thinks they can play.</s>DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Bowling - I mean, come on. Lots of people bowl. If you can have curling in the Olympics, you can have bowling in the Olympics.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Dressage, though, he says can go.

Despite the obvious dangers, there is a small tourist industry in Afghanistan. NPR's Ailsa Chang talks to London travel operator Marc Leaderman, who had led trips to the war-torn country.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: A minibus carrying foreign tourists in Afghanistan was attacked a few days ago, and the Taliban claimed responsibility. Several were injured, but no one was killed. The news that there are even tourists in Afghanistan took us a little bit by surprise. We wondered who goes to Afghanistan as a tourist. And given the obvious dangers, why do they go? It turns out there are actually several operators that run tours for intrepid travelers. We reached out to Marc Leaderman, director of Wild Frontiers Adventure Travel in London. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>MARC LEADERMAN: My pleasure.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: We should first say the minibus that was recently attacked was not one of your tours. But you have led groups in Afghanistan, and I just have to ask why.</s>MARC LEADERMAN: I think everyone's got their own individual reason. For the people that have traveled with me - I've taken people who have been fascinated by the beautiful mountain ranges - you've got the Hindu Kush, you've got the Pamir range. I've got other people who have been fascinated by the culture and the history and want to see some of the legacy of the empires that have sat in Afghanistan. So I think everyone's got their own personal story for wanting to go and visit.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Do you ever get some people who seem to be into it for war voyeurism?</s>MARC LEADERMAN: Rarely, but yes. If we find that what they're wanting to do is, as part of an ego trip, travel to dangerous places, we tell them very frankly that that's not what we're about. We are trying to show people that for many, many Afghans, life goes on as normal. And for the most part, people are incredibly friendly and hospitable. That's the Afghanistan that we're trying to show. We're not trying to take people to give them an adrenaline thrill.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: How do you ensure people's safety? Can you ever take enough security precautions?</s>MARC LEADERMAN: To be honest, we are faced with this, I mean, just in Afghanistan, but wherever we travel these days around the world. We're quite open with people that no, we can never guarantee people's safety. We encourage people to make their own decision.</s>MARC LEADERMAN: And what we say to people is we as a company - obviously, in our interest, we want to take people there safely, show them an amazing trip, and bring them back safe and sound. We'll explain to them how we do that, the risk assessments that we make, but then we leave it up to individuals to make their own mind as to whether or not that is a risk that they are prepared to take.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: I mean, it is a country with an incredibly rich heritage. If you could just tell us - what are some of the specific things that you show people?</s>MARC LEADERMAN: We've got two very different trips that go to Afghanistan. One is up in the very northeast of the country, the Wakhan Corridor. It's a very remote, very beautiful part of the country. And interestingly, it was a part of the country that was never taken by the Taliban, so it's always been a peaceful part of the country. They dress in beautiful, bold red colors. They're incredibly friendly. And people go to that part of the country really just to experience a beautiful mountainside of Afghanistan that is rarely seen in the news.</s>MARC LEADERMAN: Then we have another trip that takes people to more famous places such as Kabul, Herat, Mazar and Bamiyan. In those places, you will see monuments dating back hundreds - in some cases, thousands - of years. Herat, for example, has got a citadel which has been recently renovated that dates back almost 3,000 years. And then you've got evidence of all the empires that have been through Afghanistan.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Marc Leaderman, director of Wild Frontiers Adventure Travel, speaking to us from the BBC in London. Thank you so much for joining us.</s>MARC LEADERMAN: My pleasure. Thank you.

For many black women, knowing when and how to express anger can be a tricky political decision that some women avoid altogether. Author Brittney Cooper discusses using anger as a force for good.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Michelle Obama, Oprah, Serena Williams all have something in common. At some point during their public lives, they were labeled as angry. It's a label that many black women have struggled with in their professional and personal lives. All this month, NPR is exploring the power of anger. Today, we have a story from NPR's Mayowa Aina about one author who thinks it's time for black women to embrace their rage.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: The angry black woman is pretty well known. She shows up everywhere from pop culture to politics. She has an attitude. She's mean, loud and aggressive. Some trace the stereotype back to the 1950s and a TV show called "Amos 'N' Andy."</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: The show was the first TV program to feature an all-black cast, and one character in particular was known for her sharp tongue.</s>TIM MOORE: (As Kingfish) I was a sick man.</s>ERNESTINE WADE: (As Sapphire) Sick man nothing. You had no business stuffing yourself the way you did at mama's house last night.</s>TIM MOORE: (As Kingfish) Now, wait a minute...</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: This is Sapphire, and she constantly nags at her husband throughout the series.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: She's always berating people, particularly men, and just is not in control of her anger.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: And that's Brittney Cooper. She's a professor and author of the book "Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower." Cooper says that the stereotype known as the angry black woman used to be called the Sapphire, and it's a stereotype that black women still struggle with almost 70 years after Sapphire was introduced onscreen. Even someone like Michelle Obama has talked about trying to distance herself from the stereotype. Right before leaving the White House, she talked about it with Oprah.</s>OPRAH WINFREY: When you were labeled that angry black woman, was that one of the things that knocked you back a bit?</s>MICHELLE OBAMA: That was one of those things that you just sort of think, hey, you don't even know me.</s>OPRAH WINFREY: Yeah.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Whether or not they are actually angry, Cooper says that labeling black women that way has a particular effect.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: Whenever someone weaponizes anger against black women, it is designed to silence them. It is designed to discredit them and to say that they are overreacting, that they are being hypersensitive, that their reaction is outsized.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: And she says this happens because generally, anger is an emotion that people are really uncomfortable with. It's something that they want to control rather than address.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: Unless, of course, we're talking about white men being angry and then, you know, the whole sort of American political system is designed to respond to white male anger and white male discontent.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Cooper has pointed to the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as an example. Senator Lindsey Graham was shouting during Justice Kavanaugh's testimony.</s>LINDSEY GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: It was a turning point during the hearings, and Justice Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed. Cooper says that black women have had to be more strategic when expressing their anger, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't. As a lecturer at a university, this was at the front of her mind.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: It was just always that I thought that I should, like, be in better control because I wanted people to respect me, and I didn't want my anger to cause people to not be able to hear the things that I was trying to say.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Her feelings changed when she ran into a former student on campus one day.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: You know, she said, I love to listen to you lecture because your lectures were, like, filled with rage, but it was, like, the most eloquent rage ever. And she was saying it was the authenticity of your emotion that made me want to listen.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Now Cooper thinks about the energy that comes from her anger not as something to be managed but as a superpower to be used.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: We think about superpowers as, like, Batman using his smarts to outwit everybody or whatever. And I just think, you know, the biggest superheroes we've ever have have been black women who have looked at a set of conditions that are designed for them to fail and designed to kill them and said, we're going to live anyway. And not only are we going to live - we're going to thrive.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Black women, she says, like the three co-founders, two of whom are queer, of the Black Lives Matter movement. She also writes in her book about Beyonce and the ways that she shows her black feminist power through pop hits. This is part of what she means when she describes rage as a superpower. It is a deep source of creative energy, Cooper says, as part of what gives black women the strength to fight injustice and to imagine and build new worlds. Now, she also admits that rage can be destructive. But that's why she says rage is just a starting point.</s>BRITTNEY COOPER: Part of what I'm trying to get at is that black women are never only angry. We can be angry and at the same time be joyous, at the same time be sad, at the same time be deeply in love or be heartbroken. So rage for me becomes the ground zero for the reclamation of black women's full emotional lives.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: For Cooper, reclaiming these spidey senses called emotions is a way to fight for a sense of freedom that black people can actually enjoy, a revolution where they can dance and experience justice in their everyday lives.</s>MAYOWA AINA, BYLINE: Mayowa Aina, NPR News, Washington.</s>BEYONCE: (Singing) Hold up, they don't love you like I love you. Slow down, they don't love you like I love you. Back up, they don't love you like I love you. Step down, they don't love you like I love you. Can't you see there's no other man above you? What a wicked way to treat the girl who loves you. Oh, love, they don't love you like I love you. Oh, down, they don't love you like I love you. I hop up out my bed and get my swag on. I look in the mirror, say, what's up? What's up, what's up, what's up?

The Russian Paralympic team faces a ban from the Rio games next month, due to allegations of widespread doping. NPR's Ailsa Chang talks to journalist Rebecca Ruiz about the charges.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: The International Paralympic Committee has announced that all athletes on the Russian Paralympic team will be banned from the 2016 games. Rebecca R. Ruiz is a reporter with The New York Times. She's in Rio covering the Olympics, and she joins us now. Hey, Rebecca.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: REBECCA R. RUIZ: Hi, Ailsa.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So what did the Paralympic Committee say?</s>RUIZ: The Paralympics are set to start on September 7, and today in Rio, the president of the committee said that Russia's, quote, unquote, "thirst for medals" was abhorrent. And it prompted the committee to vote to ban the entire Russian Paralympic team from the games.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: But on what basis? What were the violations that they found?</s>RUIZ: For government-sponsored doping, for revelations of a doping program in Russia that was state-sponsored that dated back to at least 2012 and corrupted the results of, most certainly and most dramatically, the Sochi Olympics and Paralympics, the last games that Russia hosted.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: And what kind of drugs are allegedly being abused by the Paralympic athletes? I mean, are we talking about the same class of drugs that were at issue with the Olympic athletes?</s>RUIZ: Exactly. Stretching across sports and across Olympics and Paralympics, we're talking about anabolic steroids, three types that were administered to Russia's top athletes, their medal contenders, in order to not only make them stronger but to bounce back in their training, according to the director of Russia's anti-doping lab, who prepared these special concoctions for the athletes. He told us he would mix these drugs with liquor. He would give them to sports officials who would in turn give them to the athletes. And they would help athletes recover and train regularly and vigorously.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: But do some Paralympic athletes - because of their disabilities - have to take some drugs like steroids to manage their conditions anyway?</s>RUIZ: It's a good question. There are certainly therapeutic use exemptions, meaning athletes are able to, for special reasons, get permission to take drugs. But anabolic steroids are unquestionably banned in competition, and the Paralympics has a list of banned substances and, these drugs were on that list.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: And why was the entire Russian Paralympic team banned when the Russian Olympic team was spared?</s>RUIZ: There was a lot of pressure on the Olympic committee to act as the Paralympic committee now did. The president of the Olympic committee said we didn't want to choose the nuclear option. We see the Olympic movement as being about inclusion, not exclusion. This would get too political. We don't want to see the, quote, unquote, "death and devastation" that would have been produced by banning such a huge country, such a big sports power. There's a lot of money at play. Russia is an important player on the international sports stage. It hosts a lot of competitions. It gives a lot of money to sport federations. So it's a complicated question. And now we see that the International Paralympic Committee has taken a more aggressive stand than what some would say the International Olympic Committee chose to do in allowing a patchwork of Russian athletes to compete here in Rio.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Rebecca R. Ruiz in Rio is a reporter with The New York Times. Thank you so much for being with us.</s>RUIZ: Thank you.

The Roca brothers are taking on a huge logistical challenge this summer: They're recreating their cuisine in five cities, including London, San Francisco, Phoenix, Hong Kong and Santiago, Chile.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This summer, one of the world's top-rated restaurants is taking its kitchen on the road. It's a major logistical challenge, as you might imagine. The crew is cooking gourmet pop-up meals in five cities over five weeks. They begin their tour today in Phoenix, where they'll stay for several days, before heading to San Francisco. To give you a preview of what to expect, our reporter Lauren Frayer joined them on their first leg of the tour in London.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Beef cheeks sizzle in a pan, oysters float in melon puree and students at this London culinary school huddle around a stove in a kind of rapture.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: The visiting Roca brothers, Joan, Josep and Jordi, are like rock stars of international haute cuisine, says Thomas Muza, a Polish chef, waiting in line to take a selfie with them.</s>THOMAS MUZA: It's just completely different level. It's past just cooking for the people. It's about creating things - unbelievable.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: The Roca brothers are famous for fusing technology and food. They serve edible moss and pork disguised as fish. They often cook with blow torches. One signature dish is served under a glass dome filled with smoke. Their family restaurant in northeast Spain, El Celler de Can Roca, has three Michelin stars. A typical meal there will set you back several hundred dollars - if you can get a table. Reservations for all of this year sold out in just eight minutes online. This month, the restaurant is shut while the Rocas go on tour to London, Hong Kong, Phoenix, San Francisco and Santiago de Chile.</s>IGNACIO TENA RUBIO: Each time we change the city, that's an adventure. It's a new kitchen and new people to work with, new students. We don't even know where the spoons are.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Ignacio Tena Rubio works with BBVA, a Spanish bank sponsoring the tour. There's an entourage of 35 traveling sous chefs. Back home, the Rocas have a research center and a private farm. Here, they're huddled into a small, sweltering hotel kitchen. Tena calls this the biggest logistical challenge ever attempted in the world of haute cuisine.</s>IGNACIO TENA RUBIO: Usually a high-end restaurant, they change the menu maybe one dish per year. We will have five different 20-dishes menus for five weeks. It's madness, you know?</s>UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The salmon roe are for Scotland.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: They choose local ingredients in every country. The Roca brothers are U.N. Goodwill ambassadors, supporting sustainable farming around the world.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Thank you, everyone, for attending.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: On tour, these private dinners are free, but most of those invited are BBVA clients. The Roca brothers get to spread their recipes far from their home kitchen. Two lucky culinary students from each location will travel back to Spain with the brothers to work at their restaurant.</s>JOAN ROCA: (Speaking Spanish).</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: "It's a logistical challenge and a creative one," says Joan Roca, the oldest brother and head chef. "Even if you're one of the best restaurants in the world," he says, "you still need to get out of your house to learn and change." For NPR News, I'm Lauren Frayer in London.

NPR's Ailsa Chang speaks with New York Times political reporter Nick Confessore about the effect of money in the presidential campaigns.

AILSA CHANG, HOST: This week, the Trump campaign announced it raised more than $80 million in July, and they say the bulk of the money came from small donations. Hillary Clinton brought in about $90 million. The fundraising gap between the two campaigns is closer than it has been all year. To talk more about this, we're joined by Nick Confessore, political reporter at The New York Times. Welcome, Nick.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Hey, Ailsa, how are you?</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Good. Thanks for joining us.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: Of course.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So for months, we've been hearing that Trump has lagged in fundraising. What changed in July?</s>NICK CONFESSORE: What changed is small donors and Trump actually trying to raise money for the first time in his entire campaign. He's mostly been self-funded, and what hasn't been self-funded until now has basically been the proceeds of buying all those hats and T-shirts you see with his slogan on them.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Right.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: And that was basically his entire fundraising operation. And I think a lot of us thought that as soon as he tried to raise money from small donors he could be very successful about it, and, boy, we've been proven right. He has been extremely successful about it according to figures from his campaign.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: And what does the average Trump donor look like? On average, what is the size of each donation so far? Do we know?</s>NICK CONFESSORE: What they've said is that the average donation is around $50-$60, which is pretty low. And it suggests that they've managed to tap into the world of people who are not rich or even necessarily affluent but can afford to write a small check or put a recurring charge on their credit card. And, really, if you can tap those people, they're really important in politics, Ailsa, because a rich person who gives the maximum check of $2,700 for the campaign can't give any more after that.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: A person or, more importantly, you know, a few hundred thousand people who will write that $25 check every month or put their credit card on file with the campaign, they're an incredibly important financial resources for a presidential candidate.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: So has the Trump campaign given you any indication of how they're going to use this huge influx of cash now?</s>NICK CONFESSORE: They haven't given one to me, and it really is the big question. It's pretty late in the campaign, Ailsa. Usually at this point in the modern era of campaigning, let's say, Romney or Obama or even Clinton in '08, if you can, you've already spent a few months or weeks making advance buys on television to lock on rates while they're low. You've hopefully had field staff out in the key swing states for months or more building relationships in their communities, getting ready to turn out the vote. It's not clear how much of that, if any, Trump has done. In fact, there are...</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Right.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: ...Signs that he's basically outsourced it to the Republican National Committee, which has had its own program in place for a while to get ready for the nominee. So the big question to come back to again is what do they do with that $74 million cash on hand that they say they have? Well, a big piece of it will probably flow to the party to run those grassroots efforts. And you have to imagine we will finally see some Donald Trump campaign ads in force on the airwaves.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: And I guess the question is, is there enough time to drastically improve Trump's campaign infrastructure? Is there time?</s>NICK CONFESSORE: It's not really enough time for Trump to do it. What his campaign will tell you - and what I think is partly true - is that they have the Republican National Committee. After Obama won in 2012, the Republicans, you know, looked ahead to the future and thought, well, Hillary Clinton as a likely candidate for 2016, and if she runs, she'll probably get the nomination. What can we do? Well, the RNC had a good fundraising base, and they had seen what happened when they were outmatched and when they chose a nominee kind of late in the game and got started late.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: So around 2013, the RNC began doing some of this work on behalf of their future candidate. I think that in an ideal world, the nominee, Trump in this case, would be bringing more of his own lists and up-to-date data and technology and testing into the mix with the Republican National Committee.</s>AILSA CHANG, HOST: Nick Confessore is a political reporter at The New York Times. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>NICK CONFESSORE: Thank you, Ailsa.

In the new Netflix movie, Paddleton, two best friends have to learn to say goodbye. Unlike depictions of male friendship in other buddy films, these men do it with grace and love.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We've seen this movie before - two men hang out over a long weekend, hijinks ensue, and when the dust settles, they realize they'll always have each other's backs. It's a classic bromance. But what about when those friendships are put to a real test? NPR's Eliza Dennis tells us about a new Netflix film that considers that relationship.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: The movie is called "Paddleton," which is also the name of a game the two main characters, Michael and Andy, have made up. They bounce a ball off a wall with rackets trying to get it into a trash can...</s>MARK DUPLASS: (As Michael) Wait. No. No. I got it. I got it.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: ...A simple game in which writer-director Alex Lehmann sees a deeper meaning.</s>ALEX LEHMANN: Every now and then and the ball is going to hit this weird angle on the medal and - bing - it's just going to go flying off in some random direction. And now you're running your butt off, you know, trying to catch up to the ball. You're out of breath. I mean, if that's not a metaphor for life, I don't know what is.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: The random direction in the lives of Michael and Andy comes when Michael, played by Mark Duplass, receives a diagnosis of stomach cancer. Instead of tubes and hospital stays, he decides he wants to take his own life. And he enlists his Paddleton partner Andy - Ray Romano - to help him get medication to do it. Alex Lehmann says his intent wasn't to be depressing.</s>ALEX LEHMANN: It was really important for us to not just make people sit through 90 minutes of misery.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: There is a sweetness to this film. Actor and co-writer Mark Duplass agrees.</s>MARK DUPLASS: I think the core of this movie for me was really all about showing a "When Harry Met Sally" between two platonic male friends.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: There's nothing extraordinary about these platonic lovers.</s>MARK DUPLASS: They have dead-end jobs. Their apartments are crappy. They're not particularly witty or eloquent or attractive.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: It's the mundane that binds them together, like making pizza, watching Kung Fu movies and, of course, playing Paddleton along with other long-running games like the hangman word game on a green sweatshirt that Andy made for Michael, a puzzle he continuously tries and fails to solve.</s>MARK DUPLASS: (As Michael) I think it's fatty pork.</s>RAY ROMANO: (As Andy) It's not fatty pork. I made the shirt.</s>MARK DUPLASS: (As Michael) You made it about three years ago. You still remember what it is?</s>RAY ROMANO: (As Andy) It was a year and a half ago. And if it was fatty pork, there'd be two Ts. There'd be another T right there.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: Working on that puzzle is one of the friends' routines, one that they lean on as they process Michael's grim prognosis. Again, here's Alex Lehmann.</s>ALEX LEHMANN: We didn't want to make a bucket list movie where all of a sudden they needed to do all these things to give their life meaning.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: Unlike other buddy and bromance films, we don't see Michael and Andy becoming friends, but like those films, they do go on an adventure. In this case, it's a six-hour road trip to pick up lethal medication that will end Michael's life. And here's where the only tension of the whole film unfolds. Andy, who has seemed so supportive of his friend's decision, ends up buying a toy combination safe and locks the pills away. But he quickly gets up the code.</s>RAY ROMANO: (As Andy) One, two, three, four.</s>MARK DUPLASS: (As Michael) That's not the code.</s>RAY ROMANO: (As Andy) Yeah.</s>MARK DUPLASS: (As Michael) The code is one, two, three, four?</s>RAY ROMANO: (As Andy) See? You're not that smart.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: Andy and Michael return to their routine with a few changes. As Michael visibly deteriorates, he's less able to keep up the banter, and Andy has to start accepting that he will soon be alone. Writer-director Alex Lehmann says this is the essence of the story.</s>ALEX LEHMANN: When you truly love someone, you want to do anything you can to help them. You'll do anything for them and even, you know, at the cost of what you want.</s>ELIZA DENNIS, BYLINE: And it's in those day-to-day moments of friendship and love that "Paddleton" makes its quiet statement. Eliza Dennis, NPR News.

Violence broke out at the border between Venezuela and Colombia. Venezuelan troops fired tear gas and stopped crowds trying to bring humanitarian aid across the border.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to begin the program in Venezuela, where violence has broken out at the border with Colombia. Venezuelan troops fired tear gas and stopped crowds trying to bring humanitarian aid across the border. The clash left at least one truck in flames. The aid effort was organized by opponents of Venezuela's authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro, and it was led by Juan Guaido, the man who is recognized by the U.S. and several other governments as Venezuela's interim president. Correspondent John Otis is with us now from the Colombian side of the border.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: John, thanks so much for being here with us.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you saw the confrontation with the trucks. Can you just tell us what happened?</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Sure. I mean, first of all, the day started out with a lot of optimism. There were hundreds of Venezuelan volunteers trying to bring humanitarian aid across the border. But what happened is four big trucks lumbered on down to the bridge here between the Colombian city of Cucuta and the Venezuelan city of Urena. And once they got out on the bridge, Venezuelan soldiers stopped them. They started firing off tear gas and buckshot. And actually, two of the four trucks burned.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: One of the trucks managed to pull out. Another truck just got stuck out there on the border, and some of the volunteers managed to pull out some of the boxes of aid. But the trucks were burning there for most of the afternoon - huge plumes of black smoke climbing up into the sky, tear gas everywhere. And so, you know, the bridge is all blocked up right now.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And I can still hear quite a lot of activity around you there where you are now. Have you heard anything about casualties there or in other spots around Venezuela's border?</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Two people were reported to have been killed on Brazil's - on Venezuela's southern border with Brazil. Here in Colombia, there have been no reports of people killed. However, a lot of people have been injured by buckshot and also overcome with tear gas. Among them was a woman named Elizabeth Romero (ph), and here's what she said.</s>ELIZABETH ROMERO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: She said when she was riding on one of the aid trucks, the Venezuelan soldiers began to fire tear gas and buckshot, and she was just overcome by that. And she said, you know, it's Venezuelans killing one another, and we're doing all of this, you know, for this president in Venezuela who we really don't like.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And she sounds very emotional and very upset, as you can - as we can hear. Now, we understand that Venezuela has now cut diplomatic ties with Colombia. What else are we hearing from either Maduro or Guaido?</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Yeah. You know, I mean, Venezuela - that move by President Maduro today is in some ways rather symbolic because, you know, Venezuela and Colombia had pretty bad ties already. Colombian President Ivan Duque supports Juan Guaido, the opposition leader and the legitimate president. He called Maduro a dictator. So, you know, those - the ties between the two countries were pretty bad to begin with, and this just makes it worse.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So finally, John, where does the relief effort stand now? What - forgive me if I'm asking you to speculate, but do we expect more attempts, more confrontations?</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: You know, Michel, I was talking to a number of the volunteers about that this afternoon. I was here on the bridge. And they're saying, you know, we tried that today. They were really expecting, they were really hoping that the Venezuelan armed forces would, you know, back down and allow the aid in and maybe come over to - you know, come over to the side of Juan Guaido, the opposition leader. But they didn't do that, and so they're saying, you know, we don't know what we're going to do next, but this doesn't seem to be working.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is correspondent John Otis.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: John, thank you so much for talking to us.</s>JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.

President Trump met with the vice premier of China on Friday, capping another round of high-stakes trade negotiations. The countries face a self-imposed deadline next week to strike a deal.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Trade negotiators from the U.S. and China are in the midst of another round of high-stakes negotiations in Washington this week. The world's two biggest economies are trying to reach a deal and avoid escalating the tit-for-tat tariff battle that's already costing businesses and consumers billions of dollars every month. President Trump met this afternoon with China's top negotiator and said he expects to meet face to face soon with the Chinese president.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Probably at Mar-a-Lago, probably fairly soon, during the month of March.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: NPR's Scott Horsley joins us now from the White House. Hey there, Scott.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Hi, Audie.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So the president talking there about a possible meeting in March. But in the meantime, there's an important deadline looming a week from today. What is it?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: That's right. March 1 is the deadline that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping set for themselves three months ago when they met in Argentina. And if they don't make a deal by then, U.S. tariffs on some 200 billion dollars' worth of Chinese imports are set to more than double - from 10 to 25 percent. So that's the clock you hear ticking in the background. It has given some real urgency to these talks. The top U.S. negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, said this afternoon they are making progress. But the American side says there's still a lot of work to do. And the president said he thinks it's likely they'll get to a deal, but there's no guarantee.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Both parties want to make this a real deal. We want to make it a meaningful deal, not a deal that's done and doesn't mean anything. We want to make this a deal that's going to last for many, many years and a deal that's going to be good for both countries.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Towards that end, the two sides have agreed to extend their negotiations through this weekend. And the president has also said this week there's nothing magical about that March 1 deadline. So if things are going well, that might be extended a bit.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So that means we might not see tariffs jump to 25 percent. But we're still seeing 10 percent tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports. What kind of impact is that having?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: It's definitely something that's being felt both by American businesses and consumers that have to pay those tariffs, as well as by American exporters who are facing retaliatory tariffs on the Chinese side. We recently got trade figures from November, which showed that the president's China tariffs are costing north of $2 billion a month even at the 10 percent level. Of course, that would go up if they were to jump to 25 percent. And meanwhile, U.S. exports to China have fallen by about $4 billion a month both in October and November, compared to the same month a year ago. So U.S. businesses are really watching all this very carefully. Myron Brilliant is the executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.</s>MYRON BRILLIANT: Let me be clear - the U.S. Chamber wants an agreement as soon as possible to end the ongoing damage done by tariff hikes. The costs of tariffs continue to mount. And we've had our members tell us the need to get back to business. We want to get back to business but not business as usual.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Brilliant says there are some genuine structural issues that have to be dealt with in the U.S.-China trade relationship. And as much as he wants to see a deal that would end the tariffs, he also does want to see some substantive changes.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What kind of changes are we talking about?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Well, when this all started, the issues that were uppermost of concern were protection of intellectual property, the forced transfer by China of American knowhow, greater access to Chinese markets. These are tough structural issues. These are bigger than just China agreeing to buy some additional soybeans. And what's more, U.S. trade negotiators want to make sure whatever deal they strike, it is enforceable. Now, the Chinese side says they are committed to making a deal, and they will - that China will do its utmost to make something happen here.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's NPR's Scott Horsley. Scott, thank you.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: You're welcome.

The White House announced it will retain about 400 U.S. troops in Syria, partially reversing President Trump's previous decision to pull out all 2,000 troops stationed there.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Back in December, President Trump declared that the Islamic State had been defeated and it was time for all U.S. troops to come home from Syria. But after widespread criticism and the resignation of his defense secretary, the president now says a small U.S. force will remain here. He is speaking this afternoon in the Oval Office.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We can leave a small force along with others in the force, whether it's NATO troops or whoever it might be, so that it doesn't start up again. And I'm OK. It's a very small, tiny fraction of the people we have.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre is here in the studio to help us break this down. Hey, Greg.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Hey, Ari.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What is the president's new plan, and why did he change course?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Well, he was getting so much blowback in addition to the resignation of Defense Secretary Mattis a little while ago. He had Republicans like Lindsey Graham speaking out. The European allies were critical, and the Kurdish U.S. allies all felt this was a rash move that was not helpful. So yesterday evening, the White House said they were going to keep about 200 American troops there.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: I spoke with a senior administration official today. They're now using a number of roughly 400 or so which will be split, about 200 up in the north and about 200 down in the south. The current force has been around 2,000, and they've really reduced ISIS along with their U.S. allies to this tiny pocket.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Even today, the sort of last ISIS village seems to be disintegrating. And again, Trump's announcement had been sort of welcomed by the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians, but you couldn't get that kind of support from U.S. allies.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: When you look at going from about 2,000 down to 400 or so, how much can you actually do with that many troops?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Well, that is a good question. I think maybe think of it a little bit like a night watchman, somebody is there to set off an alarm. The senior administration official described these U.S. forces will be mostly observers and monitors, but they will be combat ready. And they will hopefully reassure the Kurds in the north in the sense that it will deter the others, that the Syrian army and the Russian and Iranian allies won't want to push into that area, also that Turkey was - a sense that they were going to come in and try to attack the Kurds.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: The Turks do seem to be on board. Trump spoke with President Erdogan last night. Turkish defense minister is here at the Pentagon today, so it is being organized with Turkey.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Many of the people concerned about a U.S. pullout have pointed to Iraq, where the U.S. left and ISIS took shape. Is the small U.S. presence that the administration plans for Syria enough to keep thousands of ISIS fighters from returning to the battlefield there?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Well, that's the bet they're making. Now, the U.S. does have airpower in the region, so they could call in airstrikes. They're going to try to train the Kurds. And the Europeans look like they will stay as well, that's certainly the hope. So we're talking perhaps a force of a thousand to 1,500 foreign troops if you include the Europeans as well.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And how long do you expect them to be there?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: They're saying it's open-ended. Now, the president clearly wants out, and he's given to snap decisions. And his goal has always been to defeat ISIS. But the larger goal has always been pretty fuzzy of what the U.S. wants in Syria. Syria's still very much at war with no clear solution. This force clearly is not going to play a decisive role. And the U.S. goal, I think, is still a negotiated settlement in the long term that will give the U.S. some skin in the game, but not enough to dictate an outcome.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre. Thank you.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Thanks, Ari.

Coast Guard officer Christopher Hasson appeared in court Thursday on drug and firearms charges. The Justice Department says he planned to kill people "on a scale rarely seen in this country."

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: A federal judge in Maryland has ordered a Coast Guard lieutenant held without bail on gun and drug charges. Prosecutors say Christopher Hasson is a white supremacist who kept a small arsenal in his basement apartment, had drawn up a list of Democratic leaders and cable news anchors that he planned to kill.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre was at the courthouse. He's in the studio now. And Greg, we know the judge has ordered Hasson held, but there is a caveat. What's going on?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Right. So this is at the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., just outside D.C. And the judge, Charles Day, agreed to hold the Coast Guard lieutenant, Christopher Hasson, without bond. And he noted that the prosecution is making these very serious accusations, even calling him a domestic terrorist. But the judge said the actual charges that have been filed, which are drug possession and weapons possession, don't necessarily lead to pretrial detention. And he told prosecutors they have 14 days to bring more serious charges against him, or he'd invite the defense to come back and seek his release.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So did prosecutors say they would bring more serious charges?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: No, they didn't. And they really - they pointed to this sort of detailed court filing that they've made that Hasson has 15 guns, more than a thousand rounds of ammunition and this list of more than 20 people, Democratic leaders and news anchors on cable television, who appear to be targets. Here's what the U.S. attorney Robert Hur said just after the hearing.</s>ROBERT HUR: The sheer number and force of the weapons that were recovered from Mr. Hasson's residence in this case coupled with the disturbing nature of his writings appear to reflect a very significant threat.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: To step back for a moment, how did authorities find Hasson?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So we know the Coast Guard began investigating. We don't know exactly what prompted this. But the prosecutors say he was spending hours on his government computer right at Coast Guard headquarters here in Washington where he's worked for the past three years. And he was searching for information on figures like the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, and a few other people like this.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So they set up a surveillance camera, and they saw him taking illegal opioids at his desk at work. And then they moved in, arrested him in the Coast Guard parking garage last Friday although it wasn't announced at the time. They went to his apartment in Silver Spring in suburban Washington, found these weapons and these opioids and steroids and notes on his computer where he talked about being a skinhead for 30 years while he was in the military and this desire to kill as many people as he could.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: After all this, is the Coast Guard speaking publicly now?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: No, they really haven't said much other than to acknowledge he was working for them. I did speak to one of Hasson's co-workers, Adam Stolzberg, who spent about the past six months with him. And he said he was a pretty normal guy - nothing really strange. He just talked about work, had a lot of tattoos, drove a Harley to the office. But that describes a lot of guys in the Coast Guard. So he really - as they were talking about it the past few days, they knew he'd been arrested but had no idea that it would be the kind of accusations we've seen.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So as we learn more, I want to just talk about context for a second because there have been other recent cases of politically motivated violence. What more can you tell us what we've seen the last few years?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So just last fall we had this case of Cesar Sayoc. He was the man down in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region who was accused of mailing pipe bombs. He was a big supporter of Trump. He mailed these pipe bombs to former Democratic leaders - Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. Also he had this sticker criticizing CNN on his van. But then we also had a shooting a couple years ago of a couple Republicans as they were practicing baseball. So sadly this has become something that's a little more common.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre. Greg, thank you.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Bennett Clifford, a researcher at George Washington University's Program on Extremism about what happened to Americans who had joined ISIS and wanted to come back home.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now let's look at the challenge that comes from a different group of extremists - Westerners who have gone to fight with ISIS and want to come back home now that the caliphate has collapsed. One woman from Alabama wants to return from Syria. The State Department says she's not a citizen so won't be let in. To talk about the broader picture, Bennett Clifford is here in the studio. He's with the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. Thanks for coming in.</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: Thank you very much for having me.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: How many Americans are believed to have gone to Syria to join ISIS, either as fighters or supporters?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: Well, FBI Director Wray testified before Congress that 295 Americans either traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to join militant groups. If you'll notice, that figure includes people who were stopped at the airport as well as people who joined groups other than the Islamic State.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So close to 300 Americans. How does that compare to people in, say, Western Europe?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: It pales in comparison to a lot of Western European countries. Two numbers stand out. In France, over 1,900 people traveled - successfully traveled to join the Islamic State. Even in a smaller country like Belgium, they report numbers of over 500 of their citizens who traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And this person who's in the headlines - and they're from Alabama - is a woman. I imagine the majority of people who go over are men. What are the numbers there?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: In the American context, the study that we conducted last year found that about 13 percent of American ISIS recruits were women. We think that's an underestimation. Their stories are not necessarily reported in Islamic State propaganda due to the lesser status of women within that organization. It makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah. And as we have seen ISIS lose these big cities - Mosul, Raqqa - and its footprint shrink, how many Americans have tried to come back?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: We know of 16 Americans who have returned to the United States after fighting for Syrian and Iraqi jihadis groups. The majority of them came back in handcuffs. They were either arrested by Syrian or Iraqi forces overseas or arrested after they came back into the United States.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The majority came back in handcuffs, but I understand you met with one who was released back into society. Tell us about him.</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: So this individual, who we refer to in our study as Moe (ph), is currently participating in an innovative program in New York that focuses on deradicalizing other people that may be heading down a similar path as him. Authorities in New York decided to give him leniency for the material support statute violation that he was facing in return for his participation and cooperation. Besides his participation in this program, we know as well that he's been cooperative in providing information related to the Islamic State, as well as potentially other Americans that fought for the group.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That seems to be a difficult judgment call whether you send somebody to prison or into a program that might allow them to help deradicalize others.</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: Yes, and it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Part of the difficulty, I would say, in looking at these cases is it's very hard to determine whether an individual is disillusioned with jihadism, that they've rejected the ideology or whether they've rejected their group or whether they're simply putting on a face to avoid criminal punishment.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah. This woman from Alabama, Hoda Muthana, says that she is disillusioned with jihadism. She says she didn't fight for ISIS but was married to fighters. Has the U.S. typically treated these so-called ISIS wives differently from the fighters themselves?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: One of the difficulties there is that women, in some cases, are able to draw on this narrative that since they were not fighting members of the group and relegated to either logistics or house management or other activities on behalf of the Islamic State - that they're less culpable for their actions. I don't think that's the case. I think that women participated in the Islamic State, particularly foreign women, in different ways than men did, but ones that don't make them any less complicit or culpable in what the Islamic State did.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And just in our last 30 seconds or so, how does the U.S. approach to these issues compare with other Western democracies?</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: We have the benefit of the material support statute which allows travel to join a foreign terrorist organization itself to be criminalized and punished by prison sentences of 15 to 20 years. Very few other Western countries have statutes like that. And if they do, they carry lesser prison sentences.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Bennett Clifford, thank you so much.</s>BENNETT CLIFFORD: Thank you very much again.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: He's with the Program on Extremism at George Washington University.

There's no host, they've abandoned plans for a Best Popular Film category, and they're no longer handing out four awards during commercial breaks. Is anything going right at the Oscars this year?

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The path to this weekend's Oscar ceremony has included a lot of backtracking. First there was going to be a new category - Best Popular Film. Then there wasn't. There was a host, Kevin Hart, whose long-ago homophobic tweets generated a controversy, so he stepped down. Specific awards and performances were going to be cut from broadcast until they weren't. So what exactly can viewers expect from Sunday's ceremony? Well, here to discuss is NPR movie critic Bob Mondello chuckling at his own introduction. Welcome to the studio, Bob.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: (Laughter) It's good to be here.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So is there some reason this year's planning has been such a mess?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Yeah, there is. The Motion Picture Academy's under a lot of pressure - financial pressure - because last year's ceremony was the least-viewed Oscars in history. And low ratings mean low ad revenue for the next year. And the Oscars make most of their money for the year from the Oscar ceremony. The proposed changes were all designed to make things tighter, shorter and to encourage more people to watch. And the point, remember, is to promote movies, to make the industry look good.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So let's talk about the show part of that. The Academy has decided to go without a host. How exactly is this going to work?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Well, we hope it doesn't work the way it did last time that they didn't have a host, which was about 30 years ago. Do you remember Rob Lowe singing to Snow White?</s>EILEEN BOWMAN: (Singing, as Snow White) Starring in cartoons every night and day.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So many questions here.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: (Laughter).</s>ROB LOWE: (Singing) But you said goodbye to Grumpy and Sleepy, left the dwarves behind...</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: This was 1989, and...</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's no excuse, but yeah, go on.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Exactly. That's what happened the last time that they didn't have a host. He was just one of many celebrities that they brought up on stage. And he was theoretically entertaining the audience at that point. The problem is that host monologues take at least 10 minutes usually, right? And they - this way they don't have to give them that. They don't have to give them something to do every 20 minutes thereafter. And it's easy enough to have the celebs just come out and announce things. The problem is that hosts have big followings, right? And originally they were thinking they would have The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, to do this. He's the highest-paid, most popular actor in movies right now. But he's making movies, and he didn't have time for all the prep.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: I want to talk about another issue - diversity. This is often talked about the Oscars in terms of the nominations, things like that. Now, maybe because "Roma" and "Black Panther" are in the mix, we're not hearing about it as much this year. Does that mean that the numbers have improved?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Well, some of them have. It's not 20 white actors this year, so that's better. Spike Lee is in the mix for best director, as is Alfonso Cuaron, who's Hispanic. There's a foreign film director, Pavel Pavlovsky, the Polish director of "Cold War." That category, though, is problematic I think because this has been a great year for women directors. The most powerful film I saw in 2018 was directed by a woman, "Capernaum," directed by Nadine Labaki. And I - you know, they're not mentioned in there at all. There are no women directors in that category. In theory, there should be lots.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Well, let's talk about some of the others then. What have been some of the best women-directed movies this year?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Well, "Leave No Trace" is extraordinary. It was directed by Debra Granik. It's a hundred percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It's just an amazing picture. I really liked "The Rider" by Chloe Zhao. Both of those were in my 10 best list - "Destroyer" by Karyn Kusama. And there's a movie that got - it got a bunch of other nominations, which is "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" It got a Oscar nomination for Best Actress for Melissa McCarthy, Best Supporting Actor for Richard E. Grant. Nicole Holofcener got a screenplay nomination. But they didn't nominate the director who pulls all that together. I mean, let's listen to a clip. You'll hear why this film is nominated.</s>MELISSA MCCARTHY: (As Lee Israel) You're friends with Julia (ph) something.</s>RICHARD E GRANT: (As Jack Hock) Steinberg (ph).</s>MELISSA MCCARTHY: (As Lee Israel) Yeah.</s>RICHARD E GRANT: (As Jack Hock) She's not an agent anymore. She died.</s>MELISSA MCCARTHY: (As Lee Israel) She did? Jesus, that's young.</s>RICHARD E GRANT: (As Jack Hock) Maybe she didn't die. Maybe she just moved back to the suburbs. I always confuse those two. That's right. She got married and had twins.</s>MELISSA MCCARTHY: (As Lee Israel) Better to have died.</s>RICHARD E GRANT: (As Jack Hock) Indeed.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Marielle Heller is responsible for that (laughter).</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So is there anything you can point to that's gone well in the run up to the ceremony?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Well, they - one thing really went well, which is that the nominations this year included a bunch of big pictures, pictures that people really like - "Black Panther," "A Star Is Born," "Bohemian Rhapsody."</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Otherwise known as box office hits (laughter).</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Box office monsters. They were just huge. They made hundreds of millions of dollars, and in theory, they give people a rooting interest in the Oscars. And that should improve the viewership. By rights, this should be a very well-viewed Oscar ceremony despite all the hassles.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's NPR movie critic Bob Mondello. Thanks for explaining it to us.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: (Laughter) It's great to be here.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, about his organization's proposal for immigration reform and his recent trip to the border.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The partisan stalemate on immigration has led to the longest government shutdown in history and a national emergency declaration over a border wall. Neither President Trump nor Democrats seem willing to budge from their positions, but let's speak now with someone who thinks they can broker a compromise, Jay Timmons. He's president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. The lobbying group has drafted an immigration plan and sent it to Congress. And Timmons went to the border city of McAllen, Texas, to understand the situation up close. Welcome to the program.</s>JAY TIMMONS: Thank you. It's great to be here.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Now, I understand you met with charities serving both asylum-seekers and the Border Patrol - wondering if you met someone there whose story stays with you.</s>JAY TIMMONS: I met several, to be very honest. One that was very heart-wrenching was a woman with two small children. And she had come from Guatemala. And I had asked her, you know, what brought her to the United States. The gangs had killed a couple of - two of her brothers and then killed her husband and said that they were coming for the children. And so she just fled to escape that. And she said, I probably would have stayed except for my children. And I got thinking how horrible that decision would have been if she didn't have children - to stay there and face that violence, the threat of death herself. But with her own children, it was apparently a pretty easy decision to leave and come north.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So with these stories in mind, how are you approaching the administration, right? You have a president who's called for a national emergency, and your plan does advocate for a border wall.</s>JAY TIMMONS: It advocates for all types of security, but it also focuses on how we treat those who are seeking asylum and also those who are here under refugee status as well as those who would like to come here and work permanently. It's really a comprehensive plan because we feel it has to be comprehensive.</s>JAY TIMMONS: For one side to simply say, we want to focus on security and nothing else, another side to say, we only want to focus on bringing people here who have horrible situations, we don't think that covers the entire problem. We really believe that everyone in this discussion has some very valid points that need to be addressed. And we hope that our plan allows the conversation to start.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Now, you've talked about your plan being comprehensive, and you do call for Congress to overhaul legal immigration as well. The U.S. already admits more than a million legal permanent residents a year. So are you arguing to broaden that or just a different mix of immigrants who are allowed in?</s>JAY TIMMONS: You know, it's a little bit of both. We believe that there is a need right now for those who would like to come here in an H-1B status or high-skilled status, if you will, to have a focus in our system on those individuals because we frankly don't have enough people here in this country who can fill so many of those jobs.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Could it also be that manufacturing jobs are less attractive today than they once were, not that it's a problem with the worker?</s>JAY TIMMONS: Part of our problem - you're exactly right - is that the perception of manufacturing jobs is not as positive as it should be. And a lot of people don't understand that modern manufacturing is all about high-skilled, high-tech, very sleek, very clean jobs. So that is on us for sure, but we have 428,000 openings today, and there are of course 7 million openings in the general economy. So clearly we need - and the president has acknowledged that we need immigration to help us fill some of these jobs.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What are your hopes about what will make the difference, meaning, why would your organization or this particular plan make headway where others have failed?</s>JAY TIMMONS: Well, you know what? I would say that there is broad interest in the success of manufacturing on a bipartisan basis from both Republicans and Democrats. And so we feel that we can come to the table with a solution to point out that this is not only good for manufacturing, but it's good for the soul of America to get this problem behind us and to end this division and divisiveness.</s>JAY TIMMONS: We are proud to be able to sit down with elected leaders of all political stripes because we do have the credibility of the manufacturing workforce behind us. Twelve and a half - or 12.8, actually - million Americans work in manufacturing. So we walk in with those people and their families behind us with an idea for some real solutions.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Jay Timmons is president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Thank you for speaking with ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.</s>JAY TIMMONS: Thank you. It's great to be here.

An effort to believe victims of hate crimes rose as a counter to a long history of disbelief. Actor Jussie Smollett appears to have taken advantage of the "impulse to believe" for personal benefit.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: All week, we've been covering the changing story of Jussie Smollett. He's the "Empire" actor who was arrested and charged with filing a false police report. Smollett is black and gay, and Chicago police say he faked a hate-crime attack against him. We're going to take a step back now and look at one of the broader issues this story raises. Here's something Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson said during a news conference yesterday.</s>EDDIE JOHNSON: My concern is that hate crimes will now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn't happen.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Gene Demby of NPR's Code Switch team has been thinking about who gets believed when they say they've been a victim of a crime. And we should note that our conversation will include a graphic description of a lynching. Hi, Gene.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Hey, Ari. How are you, man?</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I'm good. There is a long, sad history in this country of people being attacked because of their race or sexual orientation or other reasons. Historically, who has been believed in these kinds of cases?</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Yeah. I mean, these stories have always been about the illegitimacy of the victims in a lot of ways, right? Throughout American history, we can find these really, really powerful examples of people who could not cross the sort of threshold for credibility. If you look at the first-ever spectacle lynching in the United States, which was in 1893, in Paris, Texas, 10,000 people - the entire town of Paris, Texas - came to see a black man who was falsely accused of a crime be tortured and burned at the stake in the town square. It was on the front page of the paper. The governor of Texas called for investigations. He wanted someone to be arrested for it, and that never happened because the victim was seen as illegitimate.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: And that kind of lynching, just as an example of these kind of hate crimes, happened for the next 40 years in America. They were very public. And in some ways, the spectacle of those attacks, the sheer, like, heinousness of them, was a way for the people who were skeptical about those attacks to sort of weigh them off, like, oh, well...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: It seems like in so many of these early cases especially, the details were so extreme and gruesome and grisly that it was hard for people to believe those kinds of things actually happened, even if there were thousands of witnesses.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: And that's the thing, right? When the Jussie Smollett case first came to attention, like, the details of it seemed sort of outlandish and, like, sort of hard to piece together. But if you look at the details of any of these famous hate crime cases, whether you're talking about Matthew Shepard, or whether it's about James Byrd in Texas, you hear all these details that feel so gruesome and so random and thorough, like, even though they're random that it's almost hard to wrap your mind around how people could be so cruel. And yet, that is the rule.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So that's the history. But more recently, there have been movements, from Black Lives Matter, to #MeToo, that argue victims should be believed. How is this changing the conversation?</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Right. I mean, part of what they're trying to do is to, like, shift the gravity of legitimacy to people who haven't historically been legitimate. And so part of that is, when people tell their stories, let's take them seriously. So we don't have great numbers on what the universe of hate crimes looks like in the United States right now. Part of that is because hate crimes are underreported. Part of that is because some states don't even count them. But Brian Levin, who's the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, he's tried his best to keep track. And he says that just from the data that they have that hate crime hoaxes are exceedingly rare.</s>BRIAN LEVIN: Over the last three years, we've counted about 48. During that time, we estimate that there's about 21,000 hate crimes.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Forty-eight out of 21,000. I mean, that's less than a percent. And so, you know, it's worth asking why an outlier case like this has gotten so much attention, why it's gotten so much oxygen. But Levin also went on to say that the number of hoaxes has been dropping, but the number of incidences of hate crimes, from their calculations, has been on the uptick.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The total number of hate crimes appears to be going up. The total number of hoaxes appears to be going down. But it looks like one of those hoaxes was this case that we've all been talking about, Jussie Smollett, the "Empire" actor. The police superintendent in Chicago says he worries it will make people less likely to believe hate crime allegations. How does this fit into the whole landscape we're describing?</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Yeah. It seems like - I mean, and we can't play telepath here, but it seems like Jussie Smollett was especially attuned to the shift in thinking around who gets believed, right? In an interview last week on "Good Morning America," he sort of talked about and addressed the skepticism towards this story.</s>JUSSIE SMOLLETT: The next time that you see someone report something, maybe well after the fact that it happened, and you say to them, well, why're you waiting till now, just remember that mine was reported right away. And look what has happened.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: I mean, that doesn't sound dissimilar to what we heard during Christine Blasey Ford's testimony against Brett Kavanaugh, right, doing his confirmation hearings, or Anita Hill, right? That criticism was that, like, they'd waited too long to say anything, and so that was a reason to be skeptical of them. And it sounds like, it feels like, Jussie Smollett was especially aware of that shift. And if you just watch some of the conversation around this case, there are a lot of people who seem especially hurt, right, that he was sort of weaponizing this thing, this larger project of, like, legitimizing these claims that they had fought so hard to advance.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's Gene Demby of NPR's Code Switch team. Thanks, Gene.</s>GENE DEMBY, BYLINE: Thanks, Ari.

R&B star R. Kelly turned himself in Friday night and appeared at a bond hearing Saturday after being charged with 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: This afternoon, R&B star R. Kelly was ordered held on $1 million bond after being indicted on 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse yesterday in Chicago. At a press conference afterwards, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx added new details to the charges unveiled yesterday.</s>KIM FOXX: The victim met Robert Kelly on her 16th birthday, where she was celebrating at a restaurant. At that encounter, the victim told Robert Kelly it was her 16th birthday that day.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Cheryl Corley was at the courthouse today, and she's with us from there now. Cheryl, welcome. Thank you for talking with us.</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Oh, yes, of course.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: First, tell us about the hearing. Did the judge have some reaction to the charges?</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Well, he did, and that was interesting. He called the charges very disturbing. And then when Kelly's attorney, Steve Greenberg, talked about why Kelly should receive a low bond, the judge asked him if he had anything more to say about his client. It sounded like he wanted to hear something about his character or anything like that.</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: But he didn't get anything from the attorney, so the judge set that bond of $1 million. And he also set some special conditions for the bond. R. Kelly can't have any contact with the victims or alleged victims or witnesses in this case. He had to turn in his passport - no contact with anyone under 18 years of age at all as well.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: How did Kelly and his attorney respond to that?</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Well, he came and talked to us after the bond hearing was over, and he said given the charges, that he thought that they were pretty favorable, that they weren't upset with the bond at all. The bail is actually $250,000 for each case. He's charged with four cases. In the courtroom itself, Kelly was pretty stoic. He was in street clothes. He stood by his attorney as the charges were read.</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: And Steve Greenberg, his attorney, just said, you know, R. Kelly right now, he's presumed innocent - no reason to believe the allegations are credible. He said he heard these accusations for the first time in the courtroom just like we were hearing them. He said that R. Kelly turned himself in last night, so he spent the night in jail, and he was pretty upset. And so here's a little bit more about what he had to say about Kelly's mood.</s>STEVE GREENBERG: You know, he's devastated. Here's someone who at one point was a huge star, and now he's sitting behind bars - even if it's just for a day. He's got these accusations. He's not going to be able to tour.</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: And he also said that we shouldn't be second-guessing anyone's sex life. And he said that R. Kelly is a rock star, and he doesn't have to force anyone to have sex.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So before we finish here today, Cheryl, could you lay out the case against R. Kelly and what he faces if convicted?</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Yeah, R. Kelly faces 10 charges of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. And they say they have evidence - that they have tapes, they have witnesses, they have DNA evidence as well. So we'll see how this will all play out. Each of those charges is probationable. It also - they each carry a sentencing range of three to seven years, so the maximum that R. Kelly is facing is 70 years in prison if he is convicted.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is NPR's Cheryl Corley at the Cook County courthouse in Chicago. Cheryl, thank you.</s>CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: You're quite welcome.

Should there be a way forward for people accused of sexual misconduct and what would that look like? That's the question NPR's Michel Martin poses to Julianne Malveaux and Melanie Campbell.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We want to continue this conversation about what's next in the #MeToo movement as we step into the Barbershop. Now, that's where we invite interesting people to talk about what's in the news and what's on their minds. We want to continue the conversation that we and many others have been having about what happens or what should happen after allegations of sexual misconduct - especially allegations that don't fall neatly into the purview of law enforcement or an HR department. And a specific prompt for this conversation is the Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, who was accused earlier this month by two different women of assaulting them on two different occasions, albeit many years ago.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now, Fairfax is a Democrat, and Republicans have invited his two accusers to testify after calling for his resignation. Statehouse Democrats object, saying this is a political show. Fairfax says that law enforcement or neutral investigations should be involved. And some are asking if there is another way. Now, a group of 100 African-American women published an open letter last week that reads in part, "we strongly believe that every woman who is brave enough to come forward with allegation of sexual assault should be heard, respected and have their allegations taken seriously" - unquote. But it also goes on to say, we are uniquely familiar with the far-reaching dangers of rushing to judgment that we cannot merely stand by now and allow allegations that have not been investigated be used to justify the destruction of a person's professional career and personal reputation.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So two of the women who signed that letter are with me now. Julianne Malveaux is an economist and president emerita of Bennett College, which is one of the two historically black colleges for women in the U.S. She's here with me in our studios in Washington, D.C.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thank you for coming.</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Good to be with you.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Melanie Campbell is the president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. And she's with us from New Orleans.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Melanie Campbell, thank you so much as well.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: Thank you. Good to be here.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you're...</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: (Unintelligible).</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: OK, Melanie.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you're both obviously uncomfortable with how this is unfolding. So Julianne, as briefly as you can, tell me, what is it specifically that bothers you about the way these stories are - particularly this one - is unfolding?</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: The timing, I think, is the most unfortunate thing. You do want to believe the women, of course, but you can't believe all the women. I'm not casting any shade on these women, but I'd like to see an investigation - not a Republican-orchestrated circus, but an investigation. You can - Bob Johnson actually offered $150,000, and he said the parties can choose a law firm or investigators of their own choice.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Bob Johnson, the co-founder of BET.</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: A hundred fifty grand. Dr. Tyson has said no, she doesn't want to do that. She wants to talk to the legislature. The other woman, Ms. Weaver (ph), has said pretty much the same thing. Well, come on. If - an investigation is the only way to be fair to everyone. A legal investigation is the only way to be fair - just to set up and to air allegations.</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: We saw how that worked out with Christine Blasey Ford. She basically was treated poorly, I think, by the Republicans. But, you know, Kavanaugh's people probably say he was treated poorly as well. But she just had a he said, she said kind of thing. We need to have an investigation. There've been allegations about emails that had been passed back and forth. You can check that out.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Melanie Campbell, there are those who would argue that the - part of the reason that you're taking this stance is that Justin Fairfax is a Democrat and a progressive and that perhaps there wouldn't be the same approach if this - if he were - had a different political persuasion. And what do you say to that?</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: Well, I say they don't know what they're talking about because they don't know me. But I live in Virginia. I vote in Virginia, right? My party affiliation has nothing to do with it. People know (unintelligible) the Democratic Party all the time. So it's not about the party. It's about being able to say that we cannot have justice by tweet or justice...</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Hello.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: ...Enough Facebook postings and what people are saying online as that's part of justice. As black people in this country, you know, I don't judge Justin Fairfax, Ms. Tyson or Ms. Watson. They all have a right to due process. You cannot ignore, though - I totally agree with Julianne - how this even started is very political, right? And so the history for black people, whether as a black woman who's not believed, right, and a black man who, if you looked the wrong way, you know, look at it. And, of course, those were racial. But it's still about justice and going through a process.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: And I've had - that that's been my one consolation. I've been sexually assaulted in my life. And so it's not something I talk about a lot, but I'm saying - and - I'm not - and every woman who's gone through something has a right to be heard. And also, if I say you did it, then I know I have - there has to be some judicial system, as flawed as it is, that goes through the process legally to deal with that charge. Otherwise, if you - if people, like, jumping up and saying, OK. You know, it's got to be true. No, it has to be investigated.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So in the time...</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: And it does not need to be investigated, you know, in a partisan manner. It does need to be investigated in a way that law enforcement can check these things out...</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So...</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: ...And check these stories out.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we've got about three minutes left. I wanted to hear from each of you for that. And you both raise a number of important issues. You've both talked about the fact that - and frankly, one of the reasons we called both of you is that this is personal for both of you. I mean, Julianne Malveaux, you've been the president of a women's college. You've surely counseled many women...</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Yes.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Who've had this experience. And Melanie Campbell, as you've just told us, you've experienced this, unfortunately, yourself. And then there's this very ugly history of black women being assaulted without consequence and of black men being falsely accused. So in the time that we have left - and unfortunately, it's not enough time for this next topic - Julianne, I'll start with you. What should fairness look like?</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Fairness should look like an investigation. The statute of limitations for rape is still not over in Massachusetts. Dr. Tyson can still bring rape charges. Duke University is looking into the allegations that Ms. Meredith - I got her last name wrong last time - Watson, the allegations that she's raised. She's apparently raised allegations also against a basketball player who was a Duke student as well. Duke cannot afford to have egg on their face on this, so they're going to be investigating as well. If there is a paper trail, we have the technology to go back and see, were there emails exchanged? What happened? And so I think that the investigation is the only way to go forward.</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Now, this situation, Michel, breaks my heart. I had the opportunity to meet Justin Fairfax actually on the street at UDC a few months ago, had a very convivial conversation with him. You know, and I'm an elder, and he gave me all those elder props, and I love that when younger people do that. But I had a good good feeling about him. So this just breaks my heart. It breaks my heart to think about black women feeling that they're not being believed. But we have to look into it.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And, Melanie Campbell, what do you think fairness looks like?</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: Fairness - the same thing. He's just the investigation. Do it in a way that it's not a kangaroo court. Do it in a way that allows for - that's why we said it - stated this letter the way we did. We - consternation in even doing it but felt, knowing that the way some of this stuff is going in this new time we're in, to try to voice, to say, we have to use due process because otherwise, we're going to have a situation where people will lose their livelihoods, whether it be the woman who's making a charge or the man's being charged or whatever it is. It's like it's just - we cannot have some of the ways that things are being done where people - and then I heard someone earlier on your show, Lisa Borders, you know, who had stepped down, you know, from Time's Up, and I guess it was, you know, her choice.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Sure.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: And just being able to see all these things happening. And hopefully, she'd stepped down because she wanted to step down as opposed to her then having to step down...</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: ...Because of something someone may or may not have done.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We have to leave it there for now. That's Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Julianne Malveaux, president emerita of Bennett College.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thank you both so much.</s>JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Thank you.</s>MELANIE CAMPBELL: Thank you so much. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

The Department of Veterans Affairs released rules for a law that changes how the VA pays for outside, private care. Critics say the move is a stealth effort to privatize the VA.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Last year Congress passed a bipartisan bill to change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs pays for outside private care. The specifics of those changes were made public today. It's hard to say if the new plan has support. Veterans' organizations and congressional leaders say they've been frozen out of discussions about how the law will work. And there are critics accusing the administration of a stealth effort to privatize the VA. NPR's Quil Lawrence has this update.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: VA has been sending patients to outside specialists for years, but mostly that was VA doctors doing it for clinical reasons. The Choice Program, which started in 2014, gave veterans the option of picking a private doctor if VA care was too slow or too far away. Choice has been a mixed bag for people like Iraq vet Kayla Williams.</s>KAYLA WILLIAMS: I was notified recently that they have not been able to find any providers in the D.C. metro region who are willing to accept the Medicare rates that Choice uses.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Choice got a reputation for paying providers late and confused everyone with red tape, though Williams knew the ropes. She's not only a vet, she's a former senior official at VA. When the new expanded version goes into effect this June, there might not be so much choice to choose from, she says, because health care is in heavy demand nationwide.</s>KAYLA WILLIAMS: A lot of folks seem to believe that the capacity exists in the community, that providers are equally good, but that's not the data that I've seen.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Studies show that VA care is on par or better than private care for speed and quality in most markets. So even as it's about to expand private care, VA officials like Dr. Richard Stone, acting head of VA health, have been stressing the fact that vets who try outside care usually return.</s>RICHARD STONE: They have had a choice for years on where to go for health care. More than 90 percent of them have chosen to stay with us. And of the 10 percent that choose to go out to commercial health care providers, the vast majority go once and then come back to us.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: But expanding choice could prove that wrong, says Dan Caldwell, an Iraq vet with the conservative group Concerned Veterans for America.</s>DAN CALDWELL: When you give veterans the ability to vote with their feet, you're going to see really how the VA is performing and how veterans perceive the VA.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Caldwell's group, which is backed by billionaire conservative Charles Koch, advocates for all vets to have a choice between private care and the VA. He calls the new rules a good step in that direction.</s>DAN CALDWELL: We want to get to a place where veterans have the ability to access a private provider without prior authorization from the VA.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Critics say that would amount to privatizing the VA, and because private care is more expensive, would also bleed resources away from the department. And the cost is still an open question for this new VA expansion. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano says the Trump administration hasn't been telling Congress how it intends to pay for it.</s>MARK TAKANO: We don't know what the costs are going to be. We don't know how they're going to pay for all of this, what the cost models are - you know, highly specious arguments about why they couldn't be more transparent with Congress.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Takano signed on to a letter from Democratic and Republican committee chairs this month asking VA to collaborate more with Congress. They still haven't received the information they asked for, but two days later, VA put out a press release proclaiming a new and unprecedented level of transparency to lawmakers in Congress. Quil Lawrence, NPR News.

Dr. Paul Spiegel of the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health tells NPR's Michel Martin how humanitarian aid has been used — or withheld — for political purposes in past conflicts.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we want to talk more about that humanitarian aid that has become a focal point of tension at the Venezuelan border, as you just heard. We're going to turn now to Dr. Paul Spiegel. He is a physician. He is the director of the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He's worked for numerous humanitarian organizations over his career. Most notably, he spent more than 14 years working in the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR. He's given a lot of thought over his career to the ways in which humanitarian aid can become politicized and, in some cases, weaponized to send a message to those in power and to influence civilians. Dr. Spiegel was nice enough to come down from Baltimore to join us here in our studios in Washington, D.C.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Welcome. Thank you for joining us.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Thank you, Michel. It's a pleasure to be here.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: As we just heard, food and medical aid at the border has become a symbol of the struggle between the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, and the opposition leader, Juan Guaido. So there's no question that Venezuelans need that aid. But trying to set that aside for a moment, as hard as that is to do, is the U.S. making a political statement by parking the aid on the Colombian border?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Yes, certainly. I mean, firstly, I wanted just to say that condolences to people who's been killed and injured in Venezuela. But the U.S. has - clearly linking their aid to a goal, which is to - a regime change. And in the humanitarian world, there are humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and independence. And clearly - and impartiality. And clearly, the neutrality and independence of this aid is not there.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But the argument is that humanitarian aid groups are trying to solve a problem that could have been solved long before by the Maduro government that the Maduro government is - I mean, the argument basically is the Maduro government is the entity that politicized this aid by depriving its own citizens of supplies that they desperately need. And what would you say to that?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: That there's no question that when there is a big humanitarian crisis and that Maduro and the government and their policies have for the most part caused this problem. But for - to provide humanitarian aid, it should be done in a neutral and independent way. And when the U.S. is linking or other governments are linking aid - and it's not just here in Venezuela - in Syria and Yemen.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: And when this occurs, it has numerous short and long-term effects. One of them is, of course, the humanitarian workers themselves become instrumentalized and part of the - say, in this case, those that are working with the U.S. government to be taking a side. And it's very important, even though we all have our own political views, for humanitarians to be seen as neutral and independent.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: There are obviously situations that are all, you know, different sort of all across the world. You know, but I think many people looking at it from this end think, how could it be otherwise? I mean, given that people need the aid, it's a very polarized, a very dangerous, very volatile situation. In order to get in there, these groups need to be aligned with somebody.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Yeah.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And what would you say to that?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: That - I would say two things. Number one is that aid - there is a need for aid both within the country and also to the 3 million Venezuelans who are outside of the country. And I think it's wonderful that the U.S. and other countries are actually providing this aid. But trying to, again, depoliticize to not make it as part of a regime change is hugely important. We're already seeing now, according to Maduro, that now Russia is giving - I think it is something like 30 tons or 300 tons of aid coming in. So it's becoming not just a national emergency, not just a regional emergency but, like we've seen in Syria and Yemen, a global emergency.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let's take a step back and talk about sort of the system more broadly. You wrote a paper for Lancet - The Lancet, a medical journal, after you left the U.N. And you called out the humanitarian system as not just broke but broken. And I'd like to ask, you know, what makes you say that this is a problem with the whole system and not just the side effect of some very complex humanitarian crises that have come up over the past decade?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Yeah. The humanitarian system was developed post-World War II, and it has a very Western, let's say, outlook towards it in terms of giving aid and then dependency. I must say, things are already changing since I've written that article in terms of looking at how humanitarians can get involved with development people and keep it sustainable. But there are a lot of issues still where much of the international aid is through the United Nations and through international organizations. It's not sufficiently going through national organizations. So it's a system that does create - that has problems with sustainability and creates dependence.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So could you just give us some sense - we have a couple of minutes left. Do you - you have time to tell us a bit more about this. What do you envision? Like, what would be, you know, better? I mean, by definition, the people are in these crises in part because they're in civil conflict, and so sort of asking everybody to just, you know, step aside and allow these neutral groups - you know, to keep it neutral, to offer aid too whoever needs it seems optimistic in many of these circumstances. So tell me what this would look like. And maybe you could spend a minute telling me what, if anything, humanitarian groups are doing now to restrategize given the circumstances that we all see?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Yeah. Well, there are a lot of different things that are already happening, and many of them are positive. Number one is to reaffirm the Geneva Conventions, which means that warring factions are responsible for taking care of civilians on the borders - on the conflict and on the frontlines.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: And we've seen some cases where this is not occurring, such as in Mosul. And we're calling for a Mosul in Iraq, and we're calling for governments and particularly, let's say, the U.S. and the U.K. and others that are supporting other militaries to actually reinforce the Geneva Conventions and make sure that those people - the militaries are trained to take care of civilians that are wounded on the frontline.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: Secondly, more and more now, we're moving towards cash-based interventions. So in the past, we were giving aid. We were giving tents, we were giving food, as you're seeing here. When feasible, we're giving cash to the recipients. That, number one, removes the need for having many, many aid organizations. It also helps the local economy because you're actually spending locally as opposed to bringing in from - ships from U.S. and other places.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we only have about 30 - we only have 20 seconds. Is there any place in the world where this is working as you would hope that it would right now?</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: I'm pessimistic currently, and the reason is also because we're seeing the world changing right now globally. We're seeing an increase in populism. We're seeing the U.S. looking inwardly. And therefore, we're seeing discordance in the Security Council. And therefore, where - if the global powers were able to get together and agree on neutrality and independence, we would have a much stronger way forward.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is Dr. Paul Spiegel, director of the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He was kind of to join us here in Washington, D.C.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Doctor, thanks so much for talking to us.</s>PAUL SPIEGEL: It's a pleasure, Michel.

As the battle against ISIS in Syria winds down a woman claiming to be an American woman who went to support ISIS pleads to come back to the U.S. She's one of many languishing in detention camps now.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: As ISIS loses the last of its territory in Syria, some of the Westerners who went there to support the group are now trying to return home. Those Westerners include a woman who says she grew up in Alabama. Hoda Muthana once supported ISIS, but she told ABC News this.</s>HODA MUTHANA: I hope they excuse me because of how young and ignorant I was, really. And I can tell them that now I've changed. And now I'm a mother. And now I have none of the ideology. And hopefully everyone will see it when I get back.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The State Department said today she is not a citizen and will not be let back into the U.S. Meanwhile, there are other Western women and children being held in camps in Syria. NPR's Ruth Sherlock was recently in one of those camps, and she joins me now. Hey, Ruth.</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Hello.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Hi. So President Trump has - he's called on other countries - European countries - to bring home captured ISIS fighters and put them on trial. The U.S. could presumably do the same here. Why is the administration saying it will not let Hoda Muthana back into the U.S.?</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Well, they're saying that she doesn't have a legal basis - a valid passport or a travel visa to the United States. And President Trump has tweeted that he's talked with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and said that she should not be allowed into the country. Now, it's not quite clear what the basis for this is. She and her family say that she's from Alabama.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Some confusion, then, over exactly what her passport and citizenship status is.</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: That's exactly right. She says she traveled to Syria four years ago from Alabama to join ISIS. And she got married there to three ISIS fighters and had a son. The New York Times reports that she used social media to call for attacks on Americans. But now she says that she regrets joining ISIS and would like to return back to the United States.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Now, this comes as other countries are grappling with what to do with people coming home from the war in Syria. The United Kingdom just revoked the citizenship of a woman who went to Syria. Who is she? What's her story?</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: So she's called Shamima Begum, and she's one of three girls that left when they were teenagers from Britain to Syria in 2015. Begum was just 15 when she went to join ISIS. They're known as the Bethnal Green girls after the parts of London that they came from. So she's now also detained in this camp in Syria. And she said in an interview with the BBC that she hopes Britain will understand that she made a very big mistake. But the British home secretary has stripped her of her citizenship and is claiming that she is a threat to Britain.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So for the moment, these women, as we said, are in camps. They are in Syria. Just describe the situation there.</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: It's very difficult. When we went there, it was harsh winter. There weren't enough supplies, not enough tents to go around. Some people were sleeping out in the open because of this. They said that they couldn't get enough cooking pots, even. So you have about 1,800 women - foreign women and children from countries all around the world - 46 countries at least.</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Advocates of the families, for these women say, you know, there's a responsibility for countries to take these people back and that they would have to stand trial and face justice in their own countries because they say it could be a national security threat to actually leave them in these camps where they could be radicalized and, you know, left to languish with a very uncertain future.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Ruth Sherlock reporting there from Beirut. Thank you, Ruth.</s>RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with James Blitz, Whitehall editor of the Financial Times, about the latest in Brexit and the formation of a new political party in the U.K. called "the Independent Group."

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Brexit has already had far-reaching consequences for Britain. And here's another one. It looks like the U.K.'s decision to leave the European Union might be leading to the creation of a new political party. A handful of lawmakers from each of the two major parties have peeled off to create what they are calling "the Independent Group." To talk about what this means, James Blitz joins us now. He's Whitehall editor with the Financial Times.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Welcome.</s>JAMES BLITZ: Hello.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: This started with the defection of Labour Party members from the left. Eight have peeled off as of now. Then today, three Tory members of parliament from the right joined them. Do you think this is the start of something bigger?</s>JAMES BLITZ: Well, it's very hard to say. I mean, the starting point is that breakaway movements like this, even if they're very small - and this one is small - are very unusual in the British political system. We have a party-based system. It's very tribal. People are very loyal to their party leader, to their party brand and, in particular, to the people that work for them in local associations. So the parties don't fragment in this way.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And so after two tense years of negotiations over Brexit, what is it that has happened now to cause this unusual breakaway?</s>JAMES BLITZ: There are quite a number of things. Brexit isn't the only factor. I mean, Brexit clearly is important because the prime minister is 2 1/2 years into her negotiation. And there's a feeling that she's getting nowhere. Most of these MPs, both on the Labour and the Conservative side, really want to have a second referendum to try and revisit the decision that was made in 2016. They've always wanted that. And as we reach a kind of denouement, they, basically, decided to press the button and leave their parties altogether. So that's one factor.</s>JAMES BLITZ: But there's also another, which is that the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn looks institutionally anti-Semitic. And there are other factors as well. He's very much an old-style socialist. And so the Labour MPs in that party don't want to stay.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Does this new group have a united set of demands or principles that you mentioned, the desire for a new Brexit referendum? Do they have a platform?</s>JAMES BLITZ: Yeah, they have. I mean, they're very much in the center ground of politics, if you'd like. They stand for moderate, pragmatic politics and one which isn't driven by ideology. It's unclear exactly whether they do come together on a lot of issues. At the end of the day, the ones from Labour are rather more social democratic. The ones from the Conservative Party are, perhaps, a little more wedded to the free market.</s>JAMES BLITZ: I mean, they don't really form what you would think of as a united, coherent party yet. But these are early days. What they really need now is some really big hitters in politics, people at ministerial or even cabinet level and shadow cabinet level on both sides to come into their ranks. If they start doing that, then they're really going to get momentum.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: How likely do you think that is?</s>JAMES BLITZ: It's really hard to say. There is certainly a very serious disaffection within the Labour Party with Jeremy Corbyn. There is no doubt about that. He is, if you like, an unmovable object. He's really an almost extremist figure who doesn't represent anything like the mainstream view of MPs. So the chances of more Labour MPs coming over is high.</s>JAMES BLITZ: On the Conservative side, yes, there are quite a number of MPs. I count them at about 10 to 15 who probably want a second referendum. But that's a much smaller number. The Conservatives are, generally, more wedded to the principle of Brexit, so fewer will come from there.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I don't think anybody would have said that there was a high likelihood of a second referendum. Does the formation of this group make it more likely?</s>JAMES BLITZ: No, not at this stage. If we're going to have a second referendum in Britain, Mr. Corbyn has to decide that he's going to back it and that he is going to whip his about 265 MPs behind it. That's what's needed. I don't think there's any other way we're going to get it. Now, that might happen if we descend into, really, absolute chaos. It's not impossible. Chaos is, ultimately, the engine that moves us towards a second referendum. But it really is the very last card that is played in the entire Brexit process. So I wouldn't completely write it off yet. But it's less likely than more likely.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: James Blitz of the Financial Times, thanks so much for joining us once again.</s>JAMES BLITZ: Of course.

The Vatican started a four-day summit on Thursday that focuses on clergy sex abuse. Pope Francis called for the event following revelations of abuse and cover-ups around the globe.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: At the opening of a landmark Vatican summit, Pope Francis warned church leaders that the faithful are demanding concrete action against the clerical sex abuse that has devastated the Catholic Church's credibility. But as NPR's Sylvia Poggioli reports, abuse survivors are skeptical that this will be little more than a consciousness-raising session. A note to our listeners - this story includes language describing sexual assault.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Pope Francis told the 190 participants to listen to the cry of the young seeking justice.</s>POPE FRANCIS: (Foreign language spoken).</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: He reminded them, the holy people of God are watching us, and they are expecting concrete, effective measures rather than simple condemnations. He was followed by video of traumatic testimonies of abuse by five anonymous survivors. A man from Chile told them, you are physicians of the soul, and yet with rare exceptions, you have been transformed in some cases into murderers of the soul, into murderers of the faith.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: He was followed by a woman who said, from the age of 15, I had sexual relations with a priest. I got pregnant three times, and he made me have abortions three times quite simply because he did not want to use condoms or contraceptives. I have a life destroyed. Philippines Cardinal Luis Tagle choked up as he acknowledged to the gathering that wounds have been inflicted by us, the bishops, on the victims.</s>LUIS TAGLE: We need to help them to express their deep hurts and to help heal from them. Regarding the perpetrators, we need to serve justice, help them to face the truth without rationalization and at the same time not neglect their inner world, their own wounds.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Pope Francis handed out what he called 21 points for reflection, including drafting a handbook on steps Church leaders must take in investigating allegations, specific rules for bishops accused of cover-ups, having lay experts involved in investigations and protection and treatment of victims. And the Vatican's top sex crimes detective, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, delivered a step-by-step lesson on how to investigate abuse cases.</s>CHARLES SCICLUNA: Talking about prevention, it's important to empower our community. And I talked about a culture of disclosure in order to offer an alternative to a culture of silence.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The summit comes three decades since scandals erupted in Ireland and Australia and 20 years since the United States was hit. Abuse survivors have arrived in Rome from around the world demanding universal laws establishing zero tolerance. One of them is Juan Carlos Cruz, victim of a notorious Chilean predator priest.</s>JUAN CARLOS CRUZ: Raping a child has been a crime in the first century, in the middle ages, now, and it will be in the future. I don't find any excuse to not change radically because the church is on borrowed time right now.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: But Vatican officials have up to now justified the absence of universal rules and mandatory reporting to civil authorities, saying accused clergy could be unfairly persecuted in authoritarian states where Catholics are a threatened minority. The summit continues through Sunday, winding up with a speech by Pope Francis. It's not known whether it will contain specific new rules on how to hold accountable predator priests and the bishops who cover up for them. Sylvia Poggioli, NPR News, Rome.

An estimated 3,000 people died in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria. Most of those deaths occurred weeks or months after the hurricane made landfall — often because of problems with health care.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: It's been nearly 18 months since Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico. The blackout after the storm caused a lot of the island's health system to collapse. For months, the Puerto Rican government insisted that fewer than a hundred people died from the disaster. Now the official estimate is nearly 3,000. Tom Dreisbach from the NPR podcast Embedded has the story of how one family navigated through the chaos.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Zaida Maldonado has lived most of her life in the mountains in the middle of Puerto Rico along with her husband, Luis, and her two kids and their dogs.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: One of her kids, Javier, was born in 1999, and he was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder called Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: When he was a toddler, a doctor only gave Javier a couple years to live. But Zaida told me through an interpreter that the doctor was wrong.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>UNIDENTIFIED INTERPRETER: So she feels it's a sign from God that he wants to stay on this earth with her.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Still, Javier could not talk or walk. The only way he was able to breathe was with a ventilator which pumped air into his lungs through a tube in his throat, and that ventilator ran on electricity. Then comes September 2017.</s>UNIDENTIFIED NEWS ANCHOR: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Two days before hurricane Maria is set to make landfall, Zaida says she gets a call from Puerto Rico's Health Department. The health official says that they should go to the local emergency room before the storm. They say if the power goes out, the ER has backup supplies plus its own generator. So Zaida, her husband and her two kids go to the ER, and the hurricane makes landfall.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: By midday, the entire island has lost power.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: All communication goes down - no landlines, no cellphones. Inside the ER, Zaida and her family are actually feeling OK. The generator kicks on, and there's electricity to power Javier's ventilator. But over the next few days, things start to change.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Zaida says food, water and medical supplies are starting to run low, and even though the roads are flooded, Luis, Zaida's husband, takes the risk of driving home to get more supplies. Then a few hours later, a nurse comes to Zaida and says there's a problem. The ER has to shut down the generator. If they just leave it on, it will overheat and blow out. They can't take care of Javier anymore. And the family has to leave within about two hours.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Zaida says, we have to wait for my husband, but the nurse says there's no time. Zaida has a car there, but she's terrified of driving through the flooded roads. So the staff at the ER managed to call an ambulance to transfer them to a hospital the next town over.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: But then the ambulance won't take them.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: The paramedic says that transferring patients from hospital to hospital is not an emergency.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>UNIDENTIFIED INTERPRETER: She doesn't know how in such a moment you could be so inhumane.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: In the end, despite the danger, Zaida decides to drive herself and her two kids to the second hospital. They load up into Zaida's car where there's a special plug that connects Javier's ventilator to the engine. The hospital in the town of Aibonito is much larger, so Zaida expects it will be more prepared. After all, this is where they were told to go.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Describe just what it looks like at the hospital in Aibonito.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: "Total chaos."</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Zaida says there were people screaming, people asking desperately for dialysis or insulin for their diabetes or the chemotherapy drugs to treat their cancer. But this hospital does have the one thing Zaida desperately needs right now - electricity. And at this point, that actually makes it an outlier. Almost a week after the hurricane made landfall, FEMA said only 11 out of 69 hospitals either had electricity or fuel for generators. That means the vast majority had no power for basics like X-rays, IVs, sterilized operating rooms or ventilators.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Meanwhile, Luis, Zaida's husband, is searching for his family, and he finds them at the hospital. But the relief of finding each other doesn't last long. Javier has a weak immune system, and the hospital is a breeding ground for the sort of bacteria that could kill him. So after about five days in this hospital, Zaida and Luis decide the safest thing...</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: ...Is to just go home.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: They do not have electricity there, but they do have a generator. So now the goal of every day is to find enough diesel to keep it running. They scrape by on donations. They get some money from FEMA, but Luis says it's not enough. And from September 2017 until the next February, they do not have power. One night, Luis is checking on the ventilator, and Javier starts having convulsions. Then he stops breathing. Luis starts CPR. Several minutes go by.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Did you think he could pass away in that moment?</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>UNIDENTIFIED INTERPRETER: Yeah.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>UNIDENTIFIED INTERPRETER: We're conscious of in any moment that could happen.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Finally Javier's lungs and heart start working again. He's alive. But Luis is just fed up.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: So he goes to a radio station to try to talk about Javier's story. They actually put him on.</s>UNIDENTIFIED RADIO HOST: (Speaking Spanish).</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: The host says, so you've been without running water or electricity for more than 130 days. And Luis says, yeah. Then the host asks how Javier is doing.</s>UNIDENTIFIED RADIO HOST: (Speaking Spanish).</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Luis says, "Javier is stable. Thank God he's stable." But they need help, and his visit to the radio station actually works. It takes about a month, but a volunteer crew from a power company in Illinois helps fix the grid in their neighborhood.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: There's this video of the moment when Zaida and Luis finally flip the circuit breaker on at the house.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: As the lights come on, Zaida covers her face with her hands and starts to cry. They have power, and Javier is alive. But of course they know how close they came. Thousands of people did not survive the storm and its aftermath.</s>OMAYA SOSA PASCUAL: Most people that died did not die those first 72 hours. They died weeks and months after.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Omaya Sosa Pascual runs Puerto Rico's Center for Investigative Journalism, and she says of course a massive hurricane is always going to be bad. But she says many deaths were a result of the failures by both the Puerto Rican and federal governments, from the lack of disaster planning to the inaccurate death toll that minimized the scale of the disaster to the disorganized effort to restore power.</s>OMAYA SOSA PASCUAL: That's not part of the nature. That's part of the human incompetence.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: President Trump has rejected any criticism and says the federal government's response was a quote, "10 out of 10." Puerto Rico's governor, Ricardo Rossello, did not respond to our requests for comment. But in the past, he has said he takes responsibility for his government's failures. But the key to preventing another disaster like Hurricane Maria is a working, resilient power grid. And Puerto Rico still does not have that. When I was talking to Zaida Maldonado, all of a sudden she had to interrupt the interview.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: The power actually went out. She had a check on Javier and make sure the generator was working. She says this still happens a lot.</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: Hurricane Maria is not over for you yet.</s>ZAIDA MALDONADO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>TOM DREISBACH, BYLINE: She says they're reliving it again. Tom Dreisbach, NPR News.

Hiccup and Toothless will return to theaters this weekend when the conclusion of the animated How To Train Your Dragon trilogy takes viewers to a hidden world.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Hiccup and Toothless - if you know that those are the names of a young Viking and his dragon, you're probably looking forward to the conclusion of their animated trilogy. Critic Bob Mondello says "How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" is everything its predecessors were and more.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: We begin unusually for an animated film in darkness, a figure emerging from the fog, his sword bursting into flames, sort of the Viking equivalent of a light saber.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #1: (As character) Oh, you're a demon.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) No, I'm not a demon. I'm not a demon. See; just a guy - just a guy here to rescue these dragons, so...</s>JAY BARUCHEL: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #1: (As character) But you walked through fire.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) Dragon scales - dragons shed a lot.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: This is Hiccup, who we left as a teenager and who's now a more or less mature young leader of a town that in the first two movies turned itself into...</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) The world's first dragon-Viking utopia.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #2: (As character) Your utopia maybe. Mine's less crowded and more sanitary.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: Truth be told, this utopia was not built to last. Even if dragons weren't forever knocking it over, outside threats have been looming. What did seem built to last was the relationship between Hiccup and his dragon pal Toothless...</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) Hey, bud, wait up.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: ...Who's like a fire-breathing puppy - huge, playful and loyal. Though a discovery in a clearing in the woods...</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) He's not the only one.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: ...Could change that. They thought Toothless was the last of his kind, but he spots and is drawn to...</s>AMERICA FERRERA: (As Astrid) Another Night Fury.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: ...Glistening and pale.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) It's more like a Bright Fury.</s>AMERICA FERRERA: (As Astrid) A Light Fury.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) Yeah, yours is better probably.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: There's also a villain and aerial dragon fights and the usual animated buffoonery. But what's really captivating here is the wordless stuff, the dragon play in which Toothless tries to impress this sleek feline siren in the woods by doing the world's most awkward courtship dance.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: If the boy and dragon training bits in the first movie were homages marriages to scenes in "The Black Stallion," these sequences are like something out a born free - puppyish dragon wooing his kittenish girlfriend - actually, she is kind of lionish - and learning from her about the call of the wild. The learning part has always been central in this series - Hiccup's learning, too. In earlier installments, he lost a parent and a limb. Now he's confronting the possibility that he may also lose his best friend.</s>JAY BARUCHEL: (As Hiccup) You do know my leg isn't a chew toy, don't you?</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: The lessons are accompanied by impressive animated images - water that looks persuasively wet, glaciers that pick up atmospheric pinks and yellows, scenes where foreground figures in a dark tint are backed by a bright, sunlit field.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #3: (As character) Grimmel the Grisly - famous back where I'm from, the smartest dragon hunter I ever met.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: This bit looks so much like a scene from "Ben-Hur" you can almost forget you're watching animation. Presumably that's because cinematographer Roger Deakins returns as visual consultant, the man responsible for the look of "No Country For Old Men" and the 007 movie "Skyfall." This time he's helping the animators harness technology light years ahead of the first dragon training movie, and he's allowed Dean DeBlois, the writer-director of the series, to envision the maturing of his characters with both realism and real feeling.</s>BOB MONDELLO, BYLINE: When Hiccup sees that what's best for his dragon Toothless has to take precedence over what's best for his relationship with Toothless, well, let's just say that as the "How To Train Your Dragon" trilogy drew to its satisfying close, if there was a dry eye in the house, it wasn't mine. I'm Bob Mondello.

President Trump says it's up to his newly confirmed attorney general, William Barr, to decide whether to make public the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Here in Washington this afternoon, President Trump took questions from reporters as he met with the chancellor of Austria at the White House. One of the big questions was about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and when it might wrap up. NPR national political reporter Mara Liasson joins us with more from the White House.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Hi, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hi, Ari.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: There's a report from CNN today and a similar one from NBC yesterday suggesting that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, could turn over his findings to the Justice Department as early as next week. The president was asked about that today. What did he say?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, before we get to the president, we should say that there have been a lot of predictions over the last two years about when Mueller's investigation might end.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Right.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: NPR has not confirmed this reporting. But the president was asked about it, and here's what he said.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That'll be totally up to the new attorney general. He's a tremendous man, a tremendous person who really respects this country and respects the Justice Department. So that'll be totally up to him.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: And the reason why it's totally up to him is because Robert Mueller is not required by law to turn over a report to Congress or the public. He is supposed to give the attorney general a confidential report when he completes his work. But nothing compels the attorney general to release it to anyone, including Congress. Now, he is also not running a kind of 9/11 commission. In other words, his job isn't to unravel every mystery and answer every question about what happened. He does have to uncover whether or not crimes were committed.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So if the president says this is totally up to the attorney general, what has Barr said about whether this is going to be made public or given to Congress?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: At his confirmation hearings, Barr said that he would release as much of the report as was possible according to law and Justice Department policies. Democrats are a little nervous about this. They wanted to hear a more blanket guarantee that he would release the report. But if there is a report from Bob Mueller, there will be tremendous pressure to release it. Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans - like, 83 percent - say if there is a Mueller report, it should be released in its entirety. And even prominent Republicans in Congress like Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn in the Senate have both said if there's a Mueller report, it will have to be made public.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Well, over the last couple years, we have heard next to nothing from Mueller himself. Has that changed this week?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: No...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: (Laughter) OK.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: ...Still radio silence. One thing that's given him so much credibility is that he's not a participant in the partisan Twitter food fights around this investigation. He's said very few things. One time the special counsel's office did say something was to knock down that BuzzFeed report that said the president directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: His silence has only increased his credibility because the one time he did speak, he was, basically, shutting down a report or disputing a report that would have been negative to the president. On the other hand, the fact that he hasn't said anything has increased the desire and expectations for a complete, total accounting of what happened, especially from Democrats...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: ...And even some Republicans who think Mueller might be ready to exonerate the president. They'd like a full accounting, too.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Just in our last few seconds, how worried are they at the White House?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Trump has always seen this as a political not a legal problem. He's not worried about being indicted. He thinks the Justice Department rules against indicting a sitting president will hold. What he's really worried about is impeachment. He wants to undermine the credibility of Mueller so he can dismiss anything Mueller comes up with as a partisan smear.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's NPR's Mara Liasson at the White House. Thanks, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Thank you.

Bernie Sanders announced a second run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. This time, the Vermont independent enters the race as a leading candidate facing a crowded progressive field.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Senator Bernie Sanders is running for president once again. A few things have changed since his last run in 2016. Back then, the Vermont Independent was an underdog, and he was the candidate for the Democratic Party's left-wing base. Today, he's one of the most well-known candidates in a crowded, diverse and more progressive Democratic field.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: NPR's Asma Khalid is covering the campaign and has also caught up with Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker over the last couple days. Hi, Asma.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: Hey, Ari.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Let's start with the fact that many of the ideas Bernie Sanders has put forward - like Medicare for all, the $15 minimum wage - are now more mainstream Democratic proposals. So how does he stand out from the pack?</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: You know, Ari, in some ways, he is a victim of his own success, you could say, this time. You know, he talks a lot about how, three years ago, people thought some of those ideas were really radical, but now they're being touted by many other Democrats. And, you know, what this means is that he's not the only progressive choice this 2020 cycle.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: I've spent a lot of time recently in New Hampshire. And we should keep in mind New Hampshire is a state where Sanders clobbered Hillary Clinton during 2016. I've interviewed a number of people there, though, who supported Senator Sanders in 2016. And some are still with him 100 percent, but there's also a lot of people who are eyeing other options, like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: You know, for his part, Sanders says that he started a political revolution, and now we need to finish it. He believes that he's created a grassroots movement and that real change occurs not just through political leaders, but when people on the outside push for that change.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now, as we've said, this Democratic field is not only crowded, but it's also the most diverse we've ever seen. How does that factor into how Sanders is perceived because, in 2016, he kind of struggled with some communities of color, especially older voters?</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: Yeah, he was asked this morning by Vermont Public Radio about how he intends to pitch his candidacy in such a diverse progressive field. And he basically called for a kind of colorblind, age-blind meritocracy.</s>BERNIE SANDERS: We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by - not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: You know, after 2016, Sanders is conscious that he needs to address diverse constituencies more directly. I think the question is how effectively he can do that. But, Ari, you know, you do hear a note of defensiveness when he's asked about whether the party does want to nominate a 77-year-old white man this time.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now, even though Sanders, his policies, have become much more popular within the Democratic Party, his identity as a democratic socialist is still controversial. And President Trump has been picking up on that, pressing an argument that Democrats will bring socialism to America. Are other Democratic candidates responding?</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: Well, I was out yesterday with Kamala Harris in New Hampshire, and she was asked about Bernie Sanders. She was really quick to say, I am not a democratic socialist. And also yesterday, Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar was at a town hall with CNN. She was asked about Sanders Medicare-for-all idea. She said that that's something we could look at in the future. But, you know, you've got to build on what we have first.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: So there will be a broader conversation in the party between bold progressivism and sort of moderate-incremental approach. But I think the real question is that, you know, there are some progressives who are worried that a Sanders candidacy will actually divide their wing of the party and, in essence, what will happen is potentially a more moderate, centrist candidate will rise up.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's NPR's Asma Khalid. Thank you, Asma.</s>ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: You're welcome.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Stanley Brand, former general counsel for the House of Representatives, about what would happen if the House were to sue over President Trump's national emergency.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: When President Trump announced that he was declaring a national emergency at the border with Mexico, he made clear he was expecting a fight in the courts.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we'll get another bad ruling. And then, we'll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we'll get a fair shake.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Several lawsuits have already been filed against the administration. One that many are watching for is a suit from the House of Representatives - one branch of government suing another. For some insight into how this might play out, we called Stanley Brand. He was the general counsel for the House under Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill in the '70s and '80s. I first asked him what argument the House could make about how it's been, in legal terms, injured by the president's move.</s>STANLEY BRAND: Well, their injury will be that their legislative power has been nullified, that they passed the law as provided in the Constitution by majorities in both houses. They sent it to the president, and he signed it, and he is ignoring it. And he's going around the limitations in the law to allocate money for a purpose they haven't denominated in the legislation.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So there's the money part, all right. Would they address the whole idea of whether or not it's an emergency?</s>STANLEY BRAND: Yeah. Well, the question on whether this is an emergency is a question that goes beyond their injury or their standing to sue. That gets to what we call the merits. And that is, is the president's decision, assuming that the legislators have obtained standing, is that unconstitutional or illegal?</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: As former attorney for the House of Representatives, what's it been like for you to watch all of this play out?</s>STANLEY BRAND: Well, in one sense, I'd been here before. When I was counsel and when I worked for Tip O'Neill, we had something called the War Powers Resolution, which was a reaction to the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. And the debate at the time was has Congress by passing the War Powers Resolution in fact given the president authority he didn't have beforehand? Which is the authority to commit U.S. troops to foreign action without a declaration of war or to repel a sudden attack. So this is a history that we've gone through before where Congress delegates certain decision-making to the president and doesn't specify the limits for that delegation. And then later on, there's a fight when he applies it in a way that the Congress doesn't like.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What are you going to be listening for going forward?</s>STANLEY BRAND: The Department of Justice will raise a host of what we call threshold issues. These are issues that stop you from getting into court at all, like standing. The other one is ripeness, which is essentially the case isn't ready to be decided because no adverse action has happened. Until the president goes beyond the $1.3 billion that was appropriated, the department will be able to argue no one's been injured yet because he hasn't spent the money past the amount that the Congress provided. So there'd be a host of those issues, including statutory issues, like whether the appropriation which provides for military construction can be construed to include a border fence.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Stanley Brand, thank you so much for speaking with us.</s>STANLEY BRAND: Good to talk to you.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Stanley Brand is the Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government at Penn State's Dickinson Law School.

Ross Gay spent a year writing daily essays about things that delight him. NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Gay about some of the essays included in his new book, The Book of Delights.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: On the day he turned 42, the writer Ross Gay set himself a challenge. Every day for a year, he would write an essay about something delightful. He wrote about nicknames, fireflies, reckless air quotes. And about a hundred of those essays are now collected in his new book appropriately enough titled "The Book Of Delights." When he came into our studios, Ross Gay told me that finding those delights turned out to be easier than he expected.</s>ROSS GAY: Well, one of the things that I realized is that in the beginning I thought - oh, man. I'm going to, like, have to look around - like, be like really attentive.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Just scrounge for delights.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah - scrounge for delights, yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: (Laughter).</s>ROSS GAY: And then, like, couple of weeks in - maybe a month or so in, I started to be, like, taking notebooks of like - that was delightful. That was delightful. That was delightful. That was - so like, accumulating all of these, you know? I have an essay called "Stacks Of Delights" (ph) or something like...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Right, where you're like...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: ...Clear the decks.</s>ROSS GAY: I had to clear the deck.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: You're like, I've got too much of a backlog.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that was something. Like, my sort of attention got cultivated.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: When you spent that little time every day focusing just on that thing that made you feel love...</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: ...Delight - did it affect the rest of your day?</s>ROSS GAY: Absolutely. I mean, the thing that I - I also discovered in the course of writing this is that so much of what, to me, sort of inspired or uncovered or unveiled delight was so often personal interactions. So I became acutely aware that delight is sort of a manifestation of interdependence. You know?</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah.</s>ROSS GAY: Like, the simple and the subtle and the almost accidental - but that's the wrong word - kindnesses that we're constantly in the midst of.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Like, one of them that you write about is a high-five from a stranger.</s>ROSS GAY: Totally.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: You want to read an excerpt from that?</s>ROSS GAY: Totally.</s>ROSS GAY: (Reading) So I settled into a coffee shop, took my notebooks out and I was reading over these delights - transcribing them into my computer. And while I was working - headphones on, swaying to the new De La Soul record "Delight" - which deserves its own entry - I noticed a white girl. She looked 15 but could have been, I suppose, a college student, standing next to me with her hand raised. I looked up, confused - pulled my headphones back. And she said, like a coach or something, working on your paper? Good job to you - high-five.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: (Laughter).</s>ROSS GAY: (Reading) And you better believe I high-fived that child in her pre-ripped Def Leppard shirt and her itty-bitty Doc Martins, for I love - I delight in unequivocally pleasant public physical interactions with strangers. What constitutes pleasant, it's no secret, is informed by my largish, male and cisgender body - a body that is also largish, male, cisgender and not white. In other words, the pleasant - the delightful are not universal. We should all understand this by now.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I feel like I get to know you so well reading this, almost more than I would if I read a memoir or an autobiography because it's like I don't need to know where you went to high school...</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: ...Or what your passions were as a kid. I know that you love working in your garden. I know what preoccupies your thoughts. It feels very intimate.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah. I think the dailiness of it makes it like that. You do something every day and, like - and it's small and sort of apparently - or previously insignificant things that - boom - you get the chance to meditate on. You know?</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah.</s>ROSS GAY: I have this one in my book about bindweed. And bindweed is like...</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Which is a terrible...</s>ROSS GAY: Yes, yes.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: ...Plague in a garden. People hate it.</s>ROSS GAY: And I'm like, well, I've got to go for it. You know? I guess I'm thinking about bindweed.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Will you read a little bit of that one?</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah, totally.</s>ROSS GAY: It's "Bindweed... Delight?" is the title.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Question mark.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ROSS GAY: (Reading) There are gardeners reading this who are likely thinking that if I try to turn bindweed, that most destructive, noxious, invasive, life-destroying plant into a delight, they will bind me and poor glyphosate down my throat. That might be overstatement. All the same, it is a cloying glass half-fullness to wrangle bindweed into a delight - though I'm going for it. Shortly after having spent about 20 minutes pulling it from my newly planted mound of five sweet meat squash - yes, sweet meat; try to say that without smiling - out near the woodpile. Already coming up in that mound is all the buckwheat and clover I planted, which, along with the hopefully soon-to-be-thorough coverage of the sweet meat foliage, might crowd out the bindweed. You are right to observe in me the desire not to live with bindweed, which does not in the least negate or supersede my desire to make living with bindweed, which I do, OK.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: It occurred to me that you started writing these essays in August of 2016. So the book includes the presidential election, the inauguration, huge news-dominating events. And you're writing about a hummingbird or a pawpaw patch.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I can imagine those huge events in the news that were so dominating so much of our attention might not have caused you a lot of delight.</s>ROSS GAY: Oh, God. Yeah, exactly. And I think, again, that's something that sort of shows in the book. Like, you can see that pull to sort of, like, get completely floored. And I think it's an interesting tension to be like, I'm trying; I'm trying to keep the light. Like, this is my focus right now. This is my discipline.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Will you read from one of these essays called "The Sanctity Of Trains"?</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: You write about how people leave their bags unattended, trusting that nobody will take them. And then this is the conclusion of that essay.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ROSS GAY: (Reading) I suppose I could spend time theorizing how it is that people are not bad to each other. But that's really not the point. The point is that in almost every instance of our social lives, we are, if we pay attention, in the midst of an almost constant, if subtle, caretaking - holding doors open, offering elbows at crosswalks, letting someone else go first, helping with the heavy bags, reaching what's too high or what's been dropped, pulling someone back to their feet, stopping at the car wreck - at the struck dog, the alternating merge, also known as the zipper. This caretaking is our default mode, and it's always a lie that convinces us to act or believe otherwise - always.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That second always made me wonder if you're convincing or reminding yourself of something you don't always feel.</s>ROSS GAY: Reminding - I think reminding, for sure.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: How often do you need that reminder, that second always?</s>ROSS GAY: Often. And you know, thankfully, I have beloved friends, you know? I have reminders. And I feel like part of this thing, this project of this book is training myself that the reminders are everywhere.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So you wrote the last of these essays in August of 2017. It was your birthday, just as it was when you started this project.</s>ROSS GAY: Yeah.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And then what happened?</s>ROSS GAY: I think I sort of felt like this is something that I'll be doing in one way or another for the rest of my life.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Do you mean in a literal, practical way - like, continuing to write these essays?</s>ROSS GAY: Well, not necessarily continuing to write these essays. But this book sort of really helped me to clarify that my objective in my work is to sort of study joy complicatedly. But that sort of impulse to try to identify what it is that connects us and what it is that is evidence of our interdependence, that's the thing I'm curious about - and how my work and how my looking can help to sort of grow that. And I feel like that's something that I sort of was able to articulate in this book. And so you know, the next books I'm working on - already, I have a couple books that I'm working on - I can see, like, oh, OK. You're studying how we can love each other better.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Ross Gay's new collection of essays is called "The Book Of Delights."</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: It's been great talking with you. Thank you.</s>ROSS GAY: It's been good talking to you. Thank you.

The German-born designer helped define the looks of Chanel and Fendi behind the scenes, even as he cut a titanic figure center-stage in the fashion industry. Chanel confirmed Lagerfeld's death.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld has died at the age of 85. He was Chanel's creative director for decades, and he was a symbol of fashion itself with his signature fingerless gloves and other bold gestures. Lagerfeld balanced the luxury brand's tradition with the excitement of the future. NPR's Andrew Limbong has this appreciation.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: Karl Lagerfeld always wanted to be a grown-up. He was born in Hamburg, Germany. And he was always very cagey about telling people when, but most reports say 1933. Here's what he said about being a kid in a 2017 CNBC interview.</s>KARL LAGERFELD: I hated to be a child. That's why I could speak English, German and French when I was 6. I never played with children. I only was sketching and reading.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: He took that drive to Paris, where he began working in the fashion industry as an assistant. And in 1954, he saw something that would stick with him for decades - Coco Chanel's postwar fashion show, her first in over a decade. Here's how Lagerfeld described it to NPR in 2005.</s>KARL LAGERFELD: I liked it because for me, it was an evocation of something I had missed - life from before World War II and all that.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: It was a moment that inspired him so much that he wrote and directed a short film about it in 2013 called "The Return." It reveals how Lagerfeld presents Coco Chanel as both ambitious and frustrated, here played by Geraldine Chaplin.</s>GERALDINE CHAPLIN: (As Coco Chanel) This collection is not about fun. It's about giving a new, modern look to fashion.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: Giving fashion new and modern looks is what Karl Lagerfeld was all about, says fashion historian Valerie Steele. She is the director of the Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology.</s>VALERIE STEELE: He was like a chameleon. His style changed according to who he was designing for and when.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: Steele says that by the time Karl Lagerfeld became creative director for Chanel in 1983, it was in dire need of its own comeback.</s>VALERIE STEELE: He was like an emergency doctor who applied, you know, electric shock to this corpse and suddenly brought it back to life and made it super exciting and fashionable so that instead of, you know, just a handful of leftover - old ladies wearing it, all kinds of young women suddenly thought, whoa. Chanel is cool again.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: Karl Lagerfeld worked relentlessly not just at Chanel, but as the creative director for Fendi, as well as his own label. Benoit Peverelli is a fashion photographer who shot for Lagerfeld for the past 10 years.</s>BENOIT PEVERELLI: He was very impressive in that sense that he could talk to - and I went to a sitting next to him - and at the same time, with a laser light eye, modify a silhouette by a few inches there or the shoulder or the length of a skirt.</s>ANDREW LIMBONG, BYLINE: But Lagerfeld was not without controversy. For example, he recently dismissed models complaining of being groped while at work, telling them to, quote, "join a nunnery." That said, he's still remembered fondly by peers and colleagues - competitors, even. It was Bernard Arnault from the luxury conglomerate LVMH, which owns Louis Vuitton, who said, quote, "We loved and admired him deeply. Fashion and culture has lost a great inspiration." Andrew Limbong, NPR News.

The family of a Covington High School student at the center of a standoff is suing The Washington Post. NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with media law professor Derigan Silver about First Amendment law.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: A lawyer for the Covington High School student at the center of a standoff in front of the Lincoln Memorial is suing The Washington Post. The lawsuit accuses the newspaper of bullying the student, Nicholas Sandmann, with, quote, "a modern form of McCarthyism."</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: A controversial video showed Sandmann standing across from a Native American activist during a protest march. Later, context revealed a much more complex picture of those events.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Derigan Silver is a media law professor at the University of Denver. Welcome.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: Thanks for having me, Ari.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What is your initial impression of this lawsuit?</s>DERIGAN SILVER: It's a long and complex lawsuit. It involves seven different articles written by The Washington Post, as well as a number of tweets by The Washington Post. And it brings up some very interesting kind of points about McCarthyism, as you mentioned. And the damages it seeks are sort of an interesting sort of calculation of damages. So it's a pretty complicated lawsuit.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now, media organizations have a lot of protection under the First Amendment. So what is required for this kind of lawsuit to succeed?</s>DERIGAN SILVER: Well, a lot of it depends on the type of plaintiff that you are defending. And so the question will become, what type of plaintiff is this high school student? Is he - he's clearly not what we call a public official, somebody who works for the United States government or an elected official. He is probably not what is called an all-purpose public figure, which means that he is somebody who is widely known, has widespread fame or notoriety, or he has continuing news value.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: What the courts might decide is he's a type of plaintiff which is called a limited-purpose public figure. And what kind of burden of proof does that place on the media organization when they're defending themselves in a lawsuit?</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Because the media has more liberty to write things about a president of the United States than they do about some ordinary civilian who's not in the public eye.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: Exactly. The Supreme Court has said that defamation lawsuits are really a balancing act. We balance your right to freedom of expression, Ari, as a reporter or as an individual against my right to reputation - my right to my good name. And in normal situations where we're dealing with a private individual, well, the scales may tip a little bit more in favor of that private individual than they would in favor of you as a reporter.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: But when we're dealing with anybody who is a limited-purpose public figure or an all-purpose public figure or a public official, well, then the scales are going to tip in favor of you, Ari, because the public has more of a legitimate interest in knowing what is going on with these individuals than it does in knowing what is going on with me as a private individual.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Social media is so central to this story. It's a key part of this lawsuit, and it's a key part of how this narrative spread, allowing people to jump to conclusions really quickly. How does that change the way a lawsuit like this plays out?</s>DERIGAN SILVER: It's complicated. We're taking law that developed in the 1800s or really reached the Supreme Court in the 1960s. And we're trying to take that old law, and we're trying to apply it to these very new, very novel situations.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: You know, it used to be that the damage to your reputation was measured by your sort of standing in your local community. But now, when we have information spreading over the Internet, it sort of calls into question, where did the damage happen? What is your community?</s>DERIGAN SILVER: And the court has said that we're not going to create brand-new law for these areas. So we're going to take this law that was developed for the printing press, and we're going to take this law that was developed for broadcast news, and we're going to sort of try to shoehorn it into situations that are presented to us by social media.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Let's take a step back for a moment. President Trump has talked about his wish to see libel laws changed to make it easier to sue media organizations. Just yesterday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent arguing that a case siding with The New York Times in such a lawsuit was wrongly decided. What do you make of the broader landscape right now?</s>DERIGAN SILVER: These are very, very visible individuals with a lot of power in our society calling into question the basic function of one of our fundamental institutions of democracy, and that is the press.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: And I think that those of us who believe that the press is a power of good and is a democratic necessity need to sort of stand up and start pushing back on this rhetoric and really saying, no. Just because you don't like a story doesn't make it fake news. Just because you don't agree with how you're being covered and you don't like the coverage doesn't make it a false statement.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Derigan Silver is a media law professor at the University of Denver. Thank you so much.</s>DERIGAN SILVER: Thank you, Ari.

The Handmaid's Tale the Hulu TV series based on Margaret Atwood's novel, came to Washington, D.C., to shoot a scene on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Extras gathered to portray the handmaids.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: If you were here visiting Washington, D.C., last week, you might have caught a startling sight - groups of young women dressed in floor-length red capes and oversized white bonnets strolling along the paths leading to the Lincoln Memorial. The women were extras in Hulu TV's adaptation of Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale."</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: As NPR's Lynn Neary reports, they were filming a scene for the upcoming season.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: There was a lot going on at the Lincoln Memorial that day. Tourists were being ushered into the monument by some members of the film crew...</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Anybody want to go up?</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: We're open, guys. You're more than welcome to...</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Up the steps, and off you go.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: ...While others were getting ready to shoot the scene.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: OK, handmaids, let's do another kneeling rehearsal.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: "The Handmaid's Tale" is set in Gilead, a fictional country ruled by religious extremists. Fertile women, known as handmaids, are forced to become surrogate mothers for the rulers and their infertile wives. So the sight of these red-caped women on the steps of this majestic, white monument to freedom was chilling.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: OK, good morning, handmaids. Thank you for coming out and helping us out. You guys look amazing.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: Two-hundred women portrayed the handmaids, but producer Kim Todd says, in the end, it will look like a lot more.</s>KIM TODD: We will replicate those with our visual effects so that the final shot will have thousands of handmaids stretching down the Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: As rehearsal gets underway, the women stand in rows, their heads bowed down, facing the ground.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: That's pretty good. OK. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to go, and kneel. And you'll do the action, OK? So here we go. And kneel.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: The women kneel in unison, their faces completely obscured by their winged caps.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: Anna Tummarello (ph) says wearing that cap makes you feel ashamed.</s>ANNA TUMMARELLO: We were talking on the ride over on the bus about how just humbling it is. You can't make eye contact with anybody for a few minutes after you first put it on.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: But Amy Shea (ph) says she gets a different feeling when she's surrounded by the other handmaids.</s>AMY SHEA: It kind of feels powerful, too, in a way.</s>AMY SHEA: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #4: Yeah, it feels powerful, which is very ironic...</s>AMY SHEA: Yeah, it's kind of ironic because we're not supposed to be powerful. But us all together here kind of is powerful, in a way.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: Watching from the sidelines is executive producer Warren Littlefield. He says since the show first went into production, the lines between fiction and reality have blurred at times.</s>WARREN LITTLEFIELD: The wardrobe of the handmaids has become a symbol of rising up against depression, particularly for women, and fighting back.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: As they prepare to shoot the actual scene, the lead actors emerge on the top steps of the memorial, overlooking the handmaids below.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: You'll get a separate cue for Yvonne and Joe. I'll call it out. Thank you. And rolling.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: Rolling.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: One of the leaders of Gilead and his wife stand on each side of their handmaid, played by Elisabeth Moss. This scene, says producer Kim Todd, depicts a show of power.</s>KIM TODD: It's a little bit like any country when they want to have a show of strength, but they're not running tanks through the street. They're showing the power of their prayer.</s>KIM TODD: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: Lord above, we beseech you. Hear our prayer. Ready? And kneel.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: The Lincoln Memorial is a monument to all the values Gilead has betrayed. Shooting this scene in this place, says Warren Littlefield, is a powerful experience.</s>WARREN LITTLEFIELD: June, Lizzie (ph) Moss, is kneeling on the exact same spot where Martin Luther King gave his "I Have A Dream" speech. So, yeah, goosebumps and chills over what that means.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: In the final show, the thousands of computer-generated handmaids will be kneeling in the shadow of a Washington Monument that has been changed into a cross.</s>LYNN NEARY, BYLINE: Lynn Neary, NPR News, Washington.

A wannabe rapper named Backpack Kid is suing game maker of Fortnite for stealing a dance he claims he created called The Floss.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And now to the story of an Instagram and YouTube celebrity who sparked a dance craze. He's learning firsthand how tough it can be to turn Internet fame into money. Stacey Vanek Smith and Shane McKeon from our Planet Money Indicator team say his dilemma can be described in a single sentence.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Backpack Kid is suing Fortnite for stealing The Floss.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: That does not make sense.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: I think we should just take this one noun at a time. So let's start with Backpack Kid. He is this skinny teenager with long, bony arms...</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And a backpack.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: ...And a backpack.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: OK.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: And a few years ago, he's living in Georgia, posting videos of himself dancing on Instagram when, all of a sudden, one of these videos goes viral. And it's so popular that Katy Perry invites him on "SNL" to do the dance.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Whoa. That sentence I understand.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: The kid took the stage as Katy Perry performed and, in about two seconds, took over the show.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: So this dance that he is doing - it's called flossing.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Yes.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: This is The Floss.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: The Floss.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: OK.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: And it's this dance where you sort of take your arms, and you swing them to and fro. And you're sort of flossing your hips.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: (Laughter).</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Anyway, the thing you have to know about Backpack Kid...</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Yes.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: ...Is is he made The Floss famous.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And that brings us to the next part of the sentence.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Fortnite.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Fortnite.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: So Fortnite - it's like this online, multiplayer, battle royale game. You're on a team, and you're trying to shoot the other team. But one of the things you can do in Fortnite is you can do these dances like The Floss.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Wow.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: Fortnite is owned by this company called Epic Games. And one of the major ways Epic Games makes money off of Fortnite is by selling these dance upgrades. And so Backpack Kid - right? - he looks at Fortnite, and he sees this company making a ton of money...</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: ...By selling the dance he made famous. And he's like, I want some of that action. And so Backpack Kid is suing Epic Games, and some lawyers have gotten involved.</s>DAVID HECHT: So if we were talking about music...</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: This is David Hecht. He's one of Backpack Kid's lawyers.</s>DAVID HECHT: If you had a song and they sampled from another song, we would say that that's copyright infringement.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: And so Backpack Kid has filed for some copyrights, at least one of which has been granted. But that doesn't mean he owns that arm-swinging move that all the kids are doing.</s>JESSICA LITMAN: The copyright statute does protect what the statute calls choreographic works.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: This is Jessica Litman. She teaches law at the University of Michigan.</s>JESSICA LITMAN: But it doesn't protect building blocks like dance steps.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: A choreographic work - a sequence of lots of moves performed over time, so, like, a 40-minute ballet. But a single dance move - that, Litman says, is a building block.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And if you grant copyright protection for a single dance move, it could lead to some pretty weird scenarios.</s>JESSICA LITMAN: Whenever anyone performed The Floss on the dance floor in a club, Backpack Kid could bring suit against the club. The club would have to say to people don't wave your arms.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: The courts are going to have to decide, what does Backpack Kid actually own? And what is Epic using? Is it a dance move or an entire dance? The answer to these questions will determine what Epic owes Backpack Kid, if Epic owes Backpack Kid anything. Epic Games declined to comment.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: In the meantime, Backpack Kid has taken up another pastime of...</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: OK.</s>SHANE MCKEON, BYLINE: ...Young, white teenagers who've gotten famous on the Internet. He's trying to leverage his celebrity into a rap career.</s>BACKPACK KID: (Rapping) I be flossing.

Catholic leaders from around the world are convening in Rome Thursday to discuss the continuing clergy sexual abuse crisis. Abuse survivors say they're not hopeful meaningful change will come from it.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Pope Francis has summoned bishops from around the world to the Vatican this week to talk about clergy sex abuse. They'll consider priests who abused children, bishops who cover up for them and how the Catholic Church should address these problems. This is the first summit of its kind. But as NPR's Tom Gjelten reports, it may leave Catholics in the U.S. disappointed.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: It was clear in the U.S. before it was in other countries that abusive priests are everywhere. And though church leaders here have been notoriously slow in responding to the crisis, at least they came up with some plan to deal with it. It wasn't very ambitious, and it would have been hard to enforce under church law. Even so, the U.S. bishops were not happy when their reforms were blocked by Pope Francis.</s>DANIEL DINARDO: Proposals were not received as well by the Holy See last November, as you know, and though we're disappointed - but we continue to work, and we hope that the meeting will be of help.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: The president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, speaking recently at the Catholic University of America. With Pope Francis taking the reform initiative away from U.S. bishops, he's now facing the demands of abuse survivors on his own. Several of them, including Becky Ianni, showed up this month at a locked gate outside the Vatican Embassy in Washington.</s>BECKY IANNI: Hello.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes.</s>BECKY IANNI: We have a letter that we would like to drop off that we would like to go to Pope Francis. May we come in and deliver it?</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: OK. Do you have an appointment with us?</s>BECKY IANNI: No, we don't.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Ianni, who was sexually violated by her family priest as a 9-year-old girl is now a leader of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. She says her group has moved beyond pursuing individual bad priests and are focusing on the bishops who haven't done anything about the abusers.</s>BECKY IANNI: Those people, to me, are the bigger criminals. They covered up the abuse, and they allowed more and more children to be put in harm's way. And that breaks my heart.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Reformers have had some success. Catholic dioceses around the country, for example, have identified abusive priests by name. Victim advocates like Ianni still want more, which is why they addressed their letter personally to Pope Francis.</s>BECKY IANNI: Cardinals and bishops can't control each other. So if something's going to happen, it's going to have to come from Pope Francis.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: But it's not clear the pope will see these U.S. concerns about bishop accountability as a summit priority. Catholic leaders in some other countries don't even recognize the scope of the clergy abuse crisis yet.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Father Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and commentator for the Religion News Service, thinks the pope's main goal at this summit is simply to educate the bishops attending from these other countries.</s>TOM REESE: The most important purpose of this meeting is to hammer these bishops and get them to realize how important and critical an issue this is and go home to their countries and communicate that to the rest of the bishops and get their acts together and deal with this problem of abuse.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: A worthwhile goal, but will it satisfy?</s>KATHLEEN SPROWS CUMMINGS: That offers little solace to American Catholics who feel their own church is in need of reform.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Kathleen Sprows Cummings directs the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre Dame. She notes that U.S. Catholics have become so angered over their church's failure to get to the bottom of the clergy abuse crisis that they're turning to civil law enforcement authorities to do the investigative work. In several states, attorneys general are demanding that church officials turn over any information they may have on misconduct by priests or bishops. Cummings says this is where the action is now.</s>KATHLEEN SPROWS CUMMINGS: I would love for the church to commit to saying, we're going to find out what happened and come to a reckoning of this. I don't see that happening. And at this point, I think we have to look to the civil authorities to do that.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: What this could mean is that whatever the pope achieves at this week's summit, it may have little effect on what's happening with the abuse crisis here in the U.S. At this month's Catholic University preview of the Rome meeting, it fell to a Catholic layman, John Garvey, the university president, to lay out what's at stake.</s>JOHN GARVEY: We need to understand that people's love for the church is greatly affected. And we better fix it, or we're going to lose the next generation of Catholics.</s>TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: That's the cloud hanging over this week's summit - the prospect that if it fails to produce results, more Catholics may leave the church altogether. Tom Gjelten, NPR News.

NPR's Michel Martin spoke with correspondent Anthony Loyd of The Times about Shamima Begum, an ISIS bride who left home as a teenager and now wants to return.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to start the program with a focus on the battle against ISIS. President Trump is expected to declare victory soon with the capture of the last pocket of territory held by the group in Syria. We're going to hear more about that in a minute. But first, we want to focus on the question of what should happen to the thousands of people who left their home countries either to fight for or live in what they thought would be the caliphate. And we're going to hear about one person whose story made international headlines.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Shamima Begum was just 15 years old when she left London four years ago with two other teenage girls to become ISIS brides. She married a young Dutch ISIS fighter. They had two children, who she says both died of malnutrition and disease due to the harsh conditions. Pregnant again, Shamima fled to a refugee camp in Syria two weeks ago, where she's just given birth to a baby boy. And she says she wants to return home to England. London Times correspondent Anthony Loyd met Shamima on a reporting trip to a refugee camp in Northeastern Syria.</s>ANTHONY LOYD: Outwardly, she seems relatively composed, calm. But I imagine she was also deeply traumatized, in huge shock. She'd lost two children recently. She just escaped from the battlefield. And she was living in a refugee camp, which is - an open prison would be too cute a way of describing it. But, I mean, she can't leave. She doesn't know what's going to become of her, so inside, there was a lot of confusion and a lot of shock.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The camp where Anthony Loyd found her is home to roughly 39,000 refugees. Among them are hundreds of wives, widows and children of ISIS fighters. He went searching for young British women.</s>ANTHONY LOYD: I knew that in this final ongoing battle, some of the mysteries related to European volunteers, wives and hostages might be revealed because this was the last bit of land that was being overrun by local allies of the coalition.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But Loyd said her journey home may not be easy.</s>ANTHONY LOYD: Britain has made it clear so far that it does not want its own volunteers who joined Islamic State as fighters - or, it seems, as wives - back into its own territory.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Shamima told Lloyd she was happy to meet a fellow Brit and to share her story. But she worried about her legal situation and what might happen to her child. Loyd interviewed her in the camp's noisy office and posted the audio on the London Times website.</s>SHAMIMA BEGUM: Now, I'm - like, I'm over 18, so they might - I might get charged with something. And what about the children? What will then happen to them? What do you think might happen to my child? They might take it away from me - or at least give it to my family.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Shamima told Loyd she's willing to do what's necessary to ensure her son's safety.</s>SHAMIMA BEGUM: I'm more than happy to, like, you know, do what they want me to do, just so long as I can settle down with my child.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But after everything, Shamima told Loyd that she has no regrets.</s>ANTHONY LOYD: She was a confused young woman who was frightened. And I think, just to use that one sentence she said, which is a classic London teenager's sentence - I've got no regrets. Whether she was at the stage of regret yet, she was certainly in grief and shock.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That was Anthony Loyd of The Times of London, who found Shamima Begum in a refugee camp in Syria earlier this week.

Workers in Sweden have the right to take six-months unpaid leave if they want to start their own business. It's one of the reasons why Sweden is a leading country for startups.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: If you dream about opening your own business, you might want to consider a move to Sweden. Their employers must grant a leave of absence up to six months to an employee who wants to start a company. If that company fails, the employee goes back to their old job. The safety net is one reason Sweden has become a leading startup hub. Maggie (ph) Savage reports from Stockholm.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: The Swedish capital is living up to its reputation as one of the snowiest cities in Europe right now. And many entrepreneurs are jetting off to work remotely wherever they can find sunshine.</s>JESSICA PETTERSON: My name is Jessica Petterson. I usually live in Stockholm. Right now, I'm here in Sri Lanka, working remote for a month.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: She has a permanent job at a children's charity in Sweden but has long-craved the chance to work more flexibly. So last year, she started a business offering virtual assistance to nonprofit organizations, which she can manage from anywhere in the world. Her employer agreed to hold her job open while she got started.</s>JESSICA PETTERSON: I'm actually not sure if I would have dared to try to start this business if it wasn't for this opportunity to take this leave. It's quite a risk to start all over, no income whatsoever at the beginning.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: Her story isn't unusual in Sweden, where anyone with a permanent position has a legal right to take unpaid leave for six months to launch a company, providing it doesn't compete with their usual employer.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: To find out more, I braved the snow and made a visit to Samuel Engblom at the Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees, which represents white-collar workers. Hi there.</s>SAMUEL ENGBLOM: Hello, and welcome to our offices. The idea is to promote mobility in the labor market. We want people to change jobs, and we also want people to start companies. I mean, you can promote entrepreneurship by making it more profitable, but you can also promote entrepreneurship by making it less insecure.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: Global observers argue that one of the benefits of Sweden's unpaid leave system is that it recognizes it's more than just financial risk that puts off entrepreneurs. Career risk is also a key factor in whether or not people take the plunge in launching a business.</s>TING XU: Regardless what you do after you fail as entrepreneur, when you go back to the labor market, you might have a hard time finding a job as good as the old one.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: That's Ting Xu, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia whose work focuses on entrepreneurial finance.</s>TING XU: Many countries - they spend a lot of money - subsidize financing to entrepreneurs. However, reduce in risk can be just as important as providing finance. But what we cannot quantify is what's the cost of providing these leaves, right? I think that's the harder part.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: And many critics argue it would be just too expensive having to bring in temporary workers and losing staff they value who go off to start their own businesses. Even so, there are signs that Swedish employers are starting to export the concept.</s>MAX FRIBERG: My name is Max Friberg, today running a business software company called Inex One.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: He took unpaid leave from a consulting firm to start his company, which is based at this buzzing coworking space in the Swedish capital. Now, he's considering offering staff in the U.S. the same opportunity when the firm opens its next office in New York.</s>MAX FRIBERG: We see that as the competitive advantage - being able to offer some of these European-style benefits. And we've seen some companies, and most recently Spotify from Sweden, now doing that very successfully with flexible parental leave and holidays.</s>MADDY SAVAGE, BYLINE: It's too early to tell if unpaid leave policies will end up playing a big role in the global race for tech talent. But at a time when much of the world is shifting towards temporary contracts and the gig economy, the Swedish approach certainly stands out. For NPR News, I'm Maddy Savage in Stockholm.

There are many things driving tens of thousands of Venezuelans to the streets. But a small part of this is what the economic and political crisis is doing to a basic food item — arepas.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Meanwhile in Venezuela itself, tens of thousands of people have been taking to the streets to demand an end to Maduro's presidency. One of the things driving Venezuelans to protest is what the economic crisis is doing to their beloved arepas. NPR's Eyder Peralta reports.</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Opposition rallies here in Caracas have been massive.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: (Shouting in Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Tens of thousands line main boulevards. And you hear a raft of complaints. There's no water. There are power cuts. A six-pack of toilet paper will cost you a month's salary. 22-year-old Christos Aguilaro (ph) says he's done with this phony socialism. But there is one thing in particular that cuts deep.</s>CHRISTOS AGUILARO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: He's gone a week without eating cheese. He's had to stuff his arepas with lentils - something, he says, he thought he'd never eat. The next day, this spot is back to normal - except there is a line that stretches one city block. Everyone just saw a truck full of flour arrive. Havier (ph), who asked we only use his first name because he fears government retaliation, is at the front of that line. The flour lets him make arepas.</s>HAVIER: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: The arepa is a sacred breakfast. It's like a thick tortilla usually made out of simple corn flour and stuffed with cheese or chicken. But the government sets a price for corn flour, so producers sneak it out of the country to sell it for more. Others have added rice to the mixture to make it a, quote, "liberated product" not subject to government control. That's what Havier was waiting for - a corn and rice flour mixture.</s>HAVIER: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Things have had to change, he says. Sometimes he eats bread instead of arepas. Some people make the arepa out of grated plantains or cassava flour. Victor Moreno (ph), a professor at the Culinary Institute in Caracas, says it's impossible to overstate how important the arepa is in Venezuelan culture. The myth is that corn was a gift from the sun - a round piece of sunlight delivered by an eagle and planted by a wise woman.</s>VICTOR MORENO: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: It makes Americans people of corn. His colleague Juan Sebastian Perez (ph) says that then raises a question. Is an arepa made of rice flour or cassava or out of the nixtamalized Mexican flour given out by the government really an arepa?</s>JUAN SEBASTION PEREZ: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Would a taco be a taco if the tortilla is made of flour and not corn? Across the city, I find another impromptu line. No one knows what they're waiting for, but they saw a truck, and they're all hoping it's flour. Mercedes (ph), who asks we only use her first name, is 57. She says she worked her entire life for the government, and now that she's retired, she can hardly buy a pack of detergent with her monthly check. As for her arepas, she makes them out of rice.</s>MERCEDES: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: She adds two spoons of flour to cooked rice, and then it tastes fine, she says. But these days in Venezuela, it's not about taste. It's about survival.</s>MERCEDES: (Speaking Spanish).</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: It's humiliating not being able to eat arepas, and it'd be fine if everyone was suffering. But those government officials, she says, are fat like whales while people like her wither. Eventually someone from the supermarket says what they got was fish. So Mercedes goes back home disappointed with little hope of eating a real Venezuelan arepa. Eyder Peralta, NPR News, Caracas.

Tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan have skyrocketed after a suicide car bombing in disputed Kashmir. Tensions are also high inside India, as some mourners call for revenge.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The latest on Kashmir, that's the disputed region in the Himalayas split between Indian and Pakistani control. This past week saw a suicide car bomb that killed some 40 Indian troops, a car bomb for which a Pakistan-based militant group has claimed responsibility. Now, this is the deadliest such attack in three decades. Tensions between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan have seldom been higher.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Lauren Frayer was just in Kashmir. She's now back at her base in Mumbai, and she joins us now. Hey, Lauren.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Hi, Mary Louise.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Start with the latest 'cause I guess there's been more violence today.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: There has. I mean, Kashmir has had this decades-long insurgency, but it normally does quiet down in winter because of this heavy snow. I was there just a week ago. It was pretty quiet. Now that scene is bombings and gun battles. Today, Indian police say they killed three militants, including a top figure in that Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Muhammad (ph). Five Indian troops also were killed today.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Meanwhile, funerals are going on across India for those troops killed in last week's bombing. Some of those funerals have morphed into these sort of nationalist rallies. Here's what it sounded like just a few moments ago outside my home in Mumbai.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: (Chanting in foreign language).</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Tell me what they're saying, what they're chanting there.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: So that was a Hindu procession that erupted into chants of Mother India and expressions of sympathy for "martyred" - that's a quote - soldiers. Across the country, there have been anti-Pakistan rallies. And there have been reports of harassment against Kashmiris across India since this bombing. Police have set up a hotline. The government's asking states to ensure Kashmiris' safety.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And I mentioned that tensions between India and Pakistan are very high as a result of this. I mean, just give us a sense of where that relationship stands.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Yeah, it's definitely shaky. The - India and Pakistan have fought three wars already over Kashmir. They both, as you mentioned, have nuclear weapons. India has recalled its envoy to Pakistan, gave a stern warning to the Pakistani ambassador here in India. India says it doesn't believe Pakistan when that country says it doesn't support these militant groups that operate from its territory.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: But so far, the row is largely diplomatic. India is trying to isolate Pakistan economically. It has rescinded Pakistan's trade partner status. After the last major attack like this, India claimed to have conducted a cross-border strike into Pakistan. Now, Prime Minister Modi says all military options are on the table right now.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And in the seconds we have left, Lauren, I suppose this all plays very much into domestic politics in India, where you have national elections coming up.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Absolutely. Modi is running for a second term as prime minister. His re-election was once seen as a sure thing. In recent weeks, there have been disappointing unemployment figures. Now this violence allows him, a Hindu nationalist, to campaign on national security from now on.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: That's NPR's Lauren Frayer in Mumbai, India. Thank you, Lauren.</s>LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: You're welcome.

The conversation continues with economics reporter Keith Reed about the writers' strike, an early holiday shopping season, and U.S. payroll growth.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: If you're just joining us, we've been talking economics with reporter Keith Reed.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Keith, let us pick up with payroll reports. So a recent report shows that employers created 166,000 jobs last month. That's the fastest pace of job growth since last spring and more than double what economists predicted. So how significant is this and why do you think these surprise numbers?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): I think it is significant. And many people were surprised because you really saw - particularly in the retail sector back in October, you saw a pretty big drop in employment in that sector. And that's because many of the retailers fear that some of the trouble in the credit markets and some of the trouble in the housing markets were going to affect the larger economy and people weren't going to be spending.</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): So when you came out and you saw economists really, really worried about the business climate and about this credit situation, that you saw a higher-than-expected job growth that surprised a lot of people.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So when you think about the housing slump and the credit crunch, does this basically - is this kind of like acid neutralizer for the bad news that's been going on?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): No, I don't think that it is, and for a few reasons. Number one, you have to look at where these jobs are being added. Number two, you have to take some of these job growths - some of the job growth that we've seen and look at it in a larger context, i.e., how many jobs were lost before you got to the larger job growth. We've seen pretty slow job growth for a while. And then, all of a sudden, you had a higher-than-expected job growth. But because it was slow for a long time, you've got to still try to make up some of the, you know, try to regain some of the jobs that were lost or some of the jobs that we should have been adding.</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): Then you also have to look at where the jobs are coming from. In other words, these jobs aren't very, you know, we're seeing more jobs but we're not seeing high-paid jobs. We're seeing jobs in relatively low-pay, low-skill sectors -particularly services, hotel and restaurant workers, those sorts of jobs. Those jobs are not going to - over the long term - sustain the economy and sustain what really has been keeping the economy afloat over the last year and a half, two years, which is the retail sector itself.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now I want to move on to another bit of job news. Chrysler announced it's going to cut thousands of jobs in 2008 - about 15 percent of the workforce. Those come on top of 13,000 layoffs made earlier this year. Give us a sense of the lay of the land in the auto industry, because you have the UAW, the union passing a new four-year contract. Is this a surprise? What's going on in the industry at large?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): This is the worst fear of many of the UAW members and negotiators coming true, which we had was a situation where - at Chrysler and with some of the other autoworkers out there. They've been negotiating their new labor deals. And one of the biggest fears was that if they granted the - the autoworkers granted the concessions that the automakers wanted, that the automakers would then turn around and lay some of their people off. And that's absolutely what happened. I would - there's not much that they can do at this point because they've now signed a new deal. I'm not really sure how they can -how the autoworkers can - the union can go back and address these issues. But it certainly has to be a strong bone of contention within the unions and also between the unions and the major automakers up in Detroit right now.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now Chrysler became a private company in August. It went into the hands of a large investment group. How do you think that's going to shape the lay of the land for them?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): I think we're still waiting to see. I mean, clearly, one of the things that Chrysler did was it cut four new - four of its models from its line. Some of those models were based on underpinnings, based on the chassis, the engine, all those sorts of things - designs that were - that they'd use from Mercedes Benz. There were the, you know, had disagreements sort of going on when the two companies were one, that Chrysler would be able to take some of the designs and some of the better workmanship from Mercedes Benz and use it in their car lineup. Now they're eliminating some of those models. What is Chrysler going to do to be able to come back and put some models out there that have that same level of quality and that same level of appeal that the American consumer, over the last few years, have come to expect from Chrysler? That's going to be a big question for them out there over the next few years.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So we have the retailers holiday shopping. Months and months and months of prep for this season - that makes so much money for retailers. There was something called Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, which was when, supposedly, retailers went in to the black, meaning, that they recouped all of the expenditures for the year. But now, if you go into some stores, you basically went from Halloween to Christmas in an instant. What's happened here?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): What's happened is - as I referred to earlier - that retail has really been keeping the economy afloat. But people - retailers, particularly -were afraid that this year, they were going to see a tough season. People weren't expected to spend as much money as they were in previous years. And that's because, you know, they haven't been able to borrow much of the spending that's been going on. And the retail economy has really been become - because people have been borrowing money, either taking - using their credit cards or taking out home equity loans. There was a general psychology of good feeling based on the fact that, hey, my house is worth 20 percent more than it was last year or 50 percent more than it was last year. Well, this year, that has gone away. And so the consumer now isn't expected to spend as much money as they would have.</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): So consequently, that means that the retailer has to extend its own holiday shopping season in order to be able to make as much money and get in to the Black. They don't think that starting in November right after Thanksgiving and going through Christmas is going to take them where they need to go in terms of hitting their revenue and their profit numbers for this year. So they had to step it up and bring it up really right after Thanksgiving.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Keith, one estimate is that Americans are going to spend 4 percent less this holiday season than last holiday season. Obviously, that will cut in to shop owners' pockets. But who else could it affect?</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): Well, it could affect almost all of us, really, Farai. I mean, if you think about - again, where some of these job - some of the job growth is happening in the retail sector. You saw a little bit of the hiring back. They laid off - they've already laid off a bunch of people again a couple of months ago, expecting that their sales were going to be down in the fourth quarter. Well, many people depend on those jobs. I mean, if you are one of those people who depends on a retail job, and you know that, you know, you've got to feed your family. You need that money to be able to pay your rent.</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): Everything in this economy is pretty much tied to how much money people are spending. And if people aren't spending the money, then the retailers can't do the hiring and then if retailers can't do the hiring, that leaves people out on the street, who then in turn can't do what? Spend more money to help keep the economy afloat. So this could affect - long term - many, many more people than just the Wal-Marts and the KB Toy stores of the world.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Keith, thanks a lot.</s>Mr. KEITH REED (Economics Reporter): Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Keith Reed is an economics reporter.

USA Gymnastics has hired a new CEO: the embattled organization's fourth leader in the past two years. The organization is trying to get beyond a widening sexual abuse scandal.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Today, USA Gymnastics named its fourth CEO in less than two years. The new leader of USA Gymnastics is Li Li Leung. She will be leaving a job as an executive with the NBA to take the role. She's also a former collegiate gymnast. Reporter Alexandra Starr joins us to talk about her appointment. Hi there.</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: Hi.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So USA Gymnastics has pretty much been in freefall since news broke in 2016 that former team doctor Larry Nassar had molested hundreds of athletes. He's now behind bars for life. So where do things stand at USA Gymnastics today?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: Things have been bad. The organization has been leaderless for months. In the fall, the U.S. Olympic Committee started the process of decertification. That basically meant that USA Gymnastics would no longer be the organization overseeing the sport. And then 2 1/2 months ago, USA Gymnastics declared bankruptcy.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That is quite a string of events. What impact did the bankruptcy have?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: It put the dozens of lawsuits that had been filed against the organization on ice, and it also put a halt to the U.S. Olympic Committee's effort to decertify USA Gymnastics. But now the head of the U.S. Olympic Committee says she's very hopeful Leung can turn things around. So it looks like the organization is going to get another chance.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: You have been covering USA Gymnastics in depth. Do you think she can turn things around?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: She's certainly saying the right things. This is what she said on a press call today.</s>LI LI LEUNG: I have bled. I have sweated. I have cried alongside my teammates, alongside other gymnasts. And it breaks my heart to see the state that the sport is in today, and that is why I stepped forward.</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: She says she wants USA Gymnastics to be more athlete-centric. And she also pointed to settling lawsuits with Larry Nassar's survivors as one of her top priorities. All that said, the attorney representing most of those survivors was scathing about her appointment, so I - we can expect more conflict ahead.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So that's what the attorney representing the survivors said. Has there been much reaction from the survivors themselves, the people who were abused by Larry Nassar?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: Some have been coming forward and saying that they were not consulted on this appointment. And they seem to be arguing at this point that they're concerned that she is not going to be a real agent of change.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Do you think she might have more success than the string of executives who have been cycling through this position?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: Look. I think she is better prepared for this job than the last two people we've seen. The last CEO, former Congresswoman Mary Bono, lasted less than a week in the job (laughter). So I think she's going to improve on those performances. At the same time, the organization has been in such disarray for so long, and reforming it is going to be such a heavy lift. We'll have to see if anyone can turn this around. So we'll be watching as we see how she moves forward as we move into, you know, Olympic preparation time.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Just to ask a bigger picture question here, there will be gymnasts in the United States competing at international levels whether or not USA Gymnastics as an organization survives. Why is it so important for somebody - anyone - to turn this organization around?</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: That's a good question, Ari. I mean, something that is really remarkable is how extraordinary the women's gymnastics team is. You know, they've just won - look at them. You know, they've won gold medal after gold medal. They cleaned up at the world championships last year. At the same time, this so-called national governing body, these - USA Gymnastics plays a role in developing a pipeline and staging these tournaments and getting people together for these camps. So it's not stuff we necessarily see, but it is important work. And I think people who are advocates for the sport really do want to see this organization turn around.</s>ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's reporter Alexandra Starr. Thank you very much.</s>ALEXANDRA STARR, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin about Andrew McCabe's comments that President Trump chooses to believe U.S. adversaries over his intelligence agencies.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump has gone on record to say he takes Russian President Vladimir Putin at his word. I was there in Helsinki when Trump was pressed about Putin's claims not to have intervened in the 2016 election.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: That was last summer. Now comes a new claim from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired from the Trump administration. He's now on book tour. His claim is that President Trump takes the same approach, elevating Putin's word above that of his own intelligence chiefs in closed-door meetings at the White House. McCabe told NPR this presents a challenge for the intelligence officials who serve the president.</s>ANDREW MCCABE: How do we impart wisdom and knowledge and the best of our intelligence assessments to someone who chooses to believe our adversaries over our intelligence professionals?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I want to bring in someone with long experience of delivering intelligence assessments to presidents of both parties. John McLaughlin is former acting director of the CIA. Welcome.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Thanks, Mary Louise.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So the context of that quote we just heard from Andrew McCabe was a briefing for the president about Russian intelligence operations in the U.S. And McCabe told us it went off the rails, that the president changed the subject to North Korea and said he did not believe reports of missiles recently launched by North Korea. And when asked why, the president said it was because Putin told U.S. intelligence was wrong. Now, McCabe says that when he heard about this conversation, his head spun. Does yours, John McLaughlin? How plausible do you find this account?</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Well, if it is as described, it's of course disturbing. It's a complicated issue, to be sure.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Sure.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: And it's certainly fair for a president to question American intelligence assessments because that typically makes them better when you have a back and forth and so forth. But I'm not aware of any instance in which an American president has said, basically, I trust our adversary more than I trust what I'm hearing from you.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: On the Russia question, more than two years into the Trump presidency, are we any closer in your view to understanding why President Trump defers to Putin?</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: It remains a puzzle. I have thought about the words he used that you heard in Helsinki when he said that President Putin was very strong in his denial. It sounds to me just based on those words - like, Putin is a former case officer. He's a skilled intelligence officer. He's been trained and has had a lot of practice in persuading someone who is easily persuaded. I don't know how else to read it.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: You're saying President Trump is being briefed by an intelligence officer just not one who works for the U.S. government.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Exactly.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: This is reminding me of another situation that played out in public view last month, the annual threat assessment testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The heads of the FBI and the CIA and the director of National Intelligence all got up and delivered assessments of all kinds of threats - North Korea, Iran, Syria and so on - assessments that are at odds with public comments the president has made. However, they never came out and directly said, hey, Mr. President, you're wrong. Are we at a point where, in your view, they should?</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: I don't think I would put it that way. I'm actually very proud of the way they handled themselves. They have a duty to do exactly what they did, and that is to say as clearly and unequivocally what they believed to be true and factually supported. I don't think it's their job to publicly correct him. It's their job to publicly say what they believed to be true.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: But when the president is saying something that is not supported by the facts, you don't think they have a responsibility greater than to the president, to the American public.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: You know, I've been in that position myself.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I know. That's why I'm asking you.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah. And I think it's very important, and I believe they do this - that it's important that they say to the president privately - that they say he's wrong. And I'm pretty confident they do that.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: John McLaughlin - he is former acting director of the CIA. Thank you.</s>JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, Mary Louise.

President Trump will make the U.S. case for new leadership in Venezuela in a speech in Miami on Monday. The situation in Venezuela is an issue of growing political importance in Florida.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump was in Miami today to talk about Venezuela and growing international pressure to oust that country's socialist president, Nicolas Maduro. Trump got a warm welcome from the crowd, which included several hundred members of South Florida's Venezuelan expat community.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The president did not announce any new policies. He did express his continued support for Juan Guaido, who the U.S. and many other countries have recognized as Venezuela's legitimate leader. And Trump had a message for members of Venezuela's military who still support Maduro.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If you choose this path, you will find no safe harbor, no easy exit and no way out. You will lose everything.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Greg Allen joins us now from Miami, where the president spoke. And, Greg, what else did the president have to say about Venezuela today?</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Well, you know, as you say, Mary Louise, it was really not any new policies here. It was really more like a campaign rally. He - a lot of red hats in there in the audience. People were very happy to see the president because - in fact, there was even some boos for the Obama administration when his name was brought up by some of the earlier speakers.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: They feel like that - Obama administration didn't do enough on Venezuela. Certainly people are happy with what President Trump is doing. His advisers - John Bolton was here, also Marco Rubio, another adviser on Venezuela.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The Florida senator, yeah.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Yes, exactly. And he's South Florida's own, you know, Cuban-American, but also a former rival of President Trump. He talked a lot. Marco Rubio talked a lot about aid shipments which are now being sent to Venezuela by USAID. They're held up at the border, the Colombian border there.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Marco Rubio was at the border yesterday. He today spoke about a plan to have individual Venezuelans deliver the aid by hand in something of a popular uprising. He said to watch for that in coming days and said that would be an important thing to watch.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: We mentioned the expat community, that some of them were in the audience. Do Venezuelans living in Florida tend to support these efforts to oust Maduro?</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: You know, now almost unanimously so, yes. I mean, so many Venezuelans have come here over the last two decades fleeing the Chavez regime and now the Maduro regime. People had property confiscated. There's a lot of anti-Maduro sentiment in Miami. There's been big demonstrations here recently that have coincided with the protests going on in Venezuela.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: So this is a population that really feels strongly about this issue. And, of course, there's connections with the Cuban-American population here, which many people there also fled a Socialist, Communist regime in Cuba.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: We can hear some chatter behind you. I gather you're still at the arena where the president was speaking earlier. And I want to ask to what extent U.S. politics might have been on his mind as he was speaking. Venezuelan-Americans, and even more so Cuban-Americans are a big and very important voting bloc there in South Florida.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Right. And I think we also got a sense that he was trying out kind of a campaign - a theme that might come up in his re-election campaign, the idea that socialism is on the march here, and we need to stop it down there. We also need to stop it here. He connected what's happening in Venezuela with the leftward turn of the Democratic Party in this country.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: To those who would try to impose socialism on the United States, we again deliver a very simple message. America will never be a socialist country.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: You know, Florida's former governor and now senator, Rick Scott, made it even clearer, saying - talking about what's going on in Venezuela and saying that's what Democrats want to bring to our country.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: All right. That's NPR's Greg Allen reporting from Miami. Thank you, Greg.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: You're welcome.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with economist Kenneth Rogoff about what would happen if the U.S. were to get rid of a lot of its paper currency, particularly larger bills, as he advocates.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: More and more of us are finding more and more ways to buy, sell and store our money, but about 70 percent of Americans still use paper money on a weekly basis. Harvard economist Ken Rogoff does not want to get rid of cash, but he does see problems with it. So we called him to ask why and ask what getting rid of cash would mean to our society.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Professor Rogoff, hey there.</s>KEN ROGOFF: Greetings.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Greetings to you. So as we just heard from that 70 percent figure, a lot of us still like cash. You can touch it. It's easy. You don't like cash. Why not?</s>KEN ROGOFF: Well, what I object to is people buying apartments in Trump Tower with suitcases of cash, buying $50,000 cars, engaged, of course, in drug transactions, human trafficking, whatever. A lot of people have perfectly healthy, good uses for cash. I have no moral objections to it. And I think for small transactions, it's still a big deal.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Yeah. You can't tip your housekeeper at a hotel if you don't have, you know, five bucks on hand or 20 bucks or whatever. You can't do it with a debit card.</s>KEN ROGOFF: Not in our country, anyway - in Sweden, maybe you can. But yes. But the question is, most of our cash is in $100 bills. And I don't know about you and your friends, but most of mine do not have $1,000 worth of $100 bills in their family of four. And that's really, I think, where a rethinking is needed.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: How much should we be worried about some Americans being left behind in a cashless society?</s>KEN ROGOFF: If we literally go cashless, then obviously, it would be a problem. But I don't think anyone, even the Swedes, are talking about that. It's really reducing the amount of cash. By the way, something a number of countries have already done - and we should do - is give people free debit accounts. You could save a lot of money because most of the low-income people who'd be getting free debit accounts, the government's transferring money to anyway. And it's kind of expensive to process the checks.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: You mentioned Sweden. They are way farther along this path towards a cashless society than the U.S. is. We had a story out of Sweden recently on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, where there were mixed views - some Swedes feeling like this is maybe going too far, too fast; others feeling like, what's the problem? - especially the younger generation. Do you think Sweden is where the U.S. is headed? Is that our future?</s>KEN ROGOFF: We are already where Sweden was, say, five or seven years ago. And in another five or seven years, we will be where Sweden is today.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Meaning what? How will our daily lives look different, do you think?</s>KEN ROGOFF: Well, I already stand in line at Starbucks in Harvard Square. And when I get to the front of the line, I'm the only one using cash. I'm old. I still use it.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: (Laughter).</s>KEN ROGOFF: I think it'll look more and more like that in many places.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: What should we be doing, as a society, to get ready for this other than - I don't know - charging up our Apple apps and our debit cards?</s>KEN ROGOFF: Most people will be able to adjust at the pace that they want to. There are these new technologies that I can't even keep up with even though I work on the topic.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Do you have a Venmo account, may I ask?</s>KEN ROGOFF: My children do. I don't. Otherwise, they'd want me to Venmo them money all the time.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: (Laughter).</s>KEN ROGOFF: I think we have to, say, coordinate state regulation.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: OK.</s>KEN ROGOFF: There has to be views about how big cash transactions should be. The U.S. is really trailing a lot of the rest of the world in getting around to this.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Yeah.</s>KEN ROGOFF: But by and large, technology will play out and will adjust. It won't be as fast as people think. And by the way, I don't believe it'll be cryptocurrencies. I think it'll be simpler digital mechanisms. There are some vulnerabilities we need to cover - like cybersecurity. We're there already on having to worry about that. But I think we are headed to a less-cash society whether people want to recognize it or not.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Ken Rogoff is an economics professor at Harvard and author of "The Curse Of Cash."</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Professor Rogoff, thank you.</s>KEN ROGOFF: Thank you for having me.

A dispute over royalties and new media has resulted in television and film writers going on strike. But how will it affect what we see on the screen? Farai Chideya talks with Larry Wilmore, an Emmy award-winning writer who also sits on the negotiating committee for the Writers Guild of America.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: TV and film writers are on strike. These are the folks who write the punch lines for your late-night host and even write in the pratfalls for your sitcoms. It's the guild's first strike in 20 years. The conflict centers around royalties from Internet and wireless business and from DVD sales.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: To talk about this and more, we have Larry Wilmore. He's an Emmy Award-winning writer who also sits on the Writers Guild negotiating committee. Larry is currently the senior black correspondent on "The Daily Show." His writing credits include "The Bernie Mac Show," "The Office," "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" and "In Living Color."</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Hey, Larry.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Hey, Farai.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you wear so many different hats. Give us some examples of what hats that you wear are and are not included under this because you're on air and off air. What would be affected in your life?</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Well, right now, for instance, I just sold a show to HBO that I will be writing and acting. And then I can't develop it right now because of the strike. So until the strike is resolved, I won't be able to take any meetings about it. I can't write at home on it. I'm not allowed to do any work on it, or even meet with them. I - we haven't even talked about the story for it yet, so I can't move forward on it at all until the strike is resolved.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): In regards to "The Daily Show," I usually go to New York about twice a month and record some segments, do a couple of lives. And I can't even do that right now because the show has to shut down because almost everything we do in that show is topical. And, you know, you certainly needs the writers. I also write my own beats too. So I can't really do much right now to be honest with you. And…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So things that we think might be spontaneous are off the cuff because writers are working on them.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: They also were included, including the late-night talk shows and things like that.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): That's absolutely correct, you know. In fact, that's what gives those shows that spontaneities when the performer has that material and they can, you know, sometimes they can adlib from there whatever but they have that comfort of having that material under them.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): And you have shows like Jay Leno and David Letterman, like Letterman's Top Ten List and, you know, all of Leno's stuff. They - I think they're both shutting down. They can't really do anything.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Television has so many different aspects to it. There is the issue of who actually writes the material.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And African-Americans haven't been highly represented in that question of who watches. And black Americans have been, in some ways, overrepresented in that. And then, also, the question of who gets paid for what.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We got a statement from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. They didn't make themselves available to come on and they said, we made an attempt at meeting them - meaning, you guys - in a number of their key areas including Internet streaming and jurisdiction in new media. Ultimately, the guild was unwilling to compromise on most of their major demands. It is unfortunate that they chose to take this irresponsible action.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What's actually on the table when we talk about DVD, new media, Internet streaming? What's the beef about between these two guilds?</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): When the companies say that, I mean, it's very disingenuous for them to say that. I mean, they had about 75 rolled bags on the table, you know. So it's like someone, you know, stealing your car and then giving you back your car radio and saying, hey, come on, we've made a move, you know. Why aren't you making a move? But you took our car. What are you talking about?</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): I mean, the big issues are really the present and the future. And TV is changing. The way shows have been watched is changing. And there are a lot of uncertainties in the future. There are many shows that don't show reruns anymore. And that's - your writers and actors make a lot of money off from what are known as residuals in entertainment for work that you've already done that's rerun. And there's not a lot of jurisdiction in the Internet world for that sort of thing right now. And many times, the companies take a show. They don't rerun it but they'll show it on the Internet, for instance. And they'll have ad money come in for that show but then the writers aren't getting paid.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): So that's money that's directly leaving a writer. That's not even like we're asking for something extra. That's money that's already in your pocket that is now leaving. And that's a major bone of contention because, let's say, Farai, 10 years from now, let's say it's even more drastic. Let's say TV barely exists anymore. Everybody just downloads TV shows when they want to. You know, it could go there. Well, you'll never know.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): If we aren't getting paid for that, a whole middle-class of writers would leave the business. In fact, John Bowman called residual payment as one of the cheapest form of research and development that this town can have.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): You take a writer like Marc Cherry, who wrote on shows like "Golden Girls" and some other shows. He went about eight or nine years without working on a show, Farai. He completely existed on residual checks. At the end of that period, he wrote "Desperate Housewives," which has become a multimillion, almost billion-dollar enterprise for ABC. So that was a great thing for him to be able to stay in the business, living on residual checks. If you take that away from writers, you're going to have a lot of people who are going to be forced to leave the business.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Larry, let me just put another spin on it which is content. Television is constantly and highly critique for whether or not it represents American diversity well, whether it represents American culture in its fullness, whether it represents stereotypes. When you look at something like this strike, it is an industry-based strike, but the same way we cover issues in the auto industry, we also cover the television industry.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: When it comes down to people sitting in their homes, facing their television sets, will this have any effect, pro or con, on the quality of what people see? And how much television reflects what America is and who Americans are?</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): That's a great question. You never know what the effects of a strike are going to be. Certainly, some of the effects will be that people will see more what are called unscripted shows. And right now, television, especially in dramas, I think, is doing a pretty good job of being more diverse, shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Lost," and - in fact, "Grey's Anatomy" is run by an African-American woman who created it. And those shows are going to be off the air. And we don't know what is going to replace them once their current new episodes ran out, you know.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): And I think - I don't know if most people are going to be affected by it in the short term. But what's going to happen is the companies are going spend a lot of money plugging these holes. And a lot of money is going to be lost.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): For instance, the strike in 1988 cost the companies about $500 million of losses, that six-month strike. That was in 1988 dollars. But if they had agreed to the contract, it probably would have been like $50 million. There - you know, it was the amounts that they could have paid to avoid those losses was miniscule, you know. And you never know how the TV landscape is going to change because of strikes. Many times they have long-lasting changes for a short amount of time. You take a show like "Cops" that was put on in 1988 because of the strike. It's still on the air. And that was - that show was put on just the plug some holes, you know.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): So certainly, TV could change a lot. And what's dangerous is that some people, you know, you take some minority writers or people who are trying - who will write on the fringes of the business, these people could be pushed out of business during the strike. You never know.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Larry, thanks a lot.</s>Mr. LARRY WILMORE (Writer; Member, Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, Writers Guild of America): Oh, you're welcome. It's always good talking to you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Larry Wilmore, Emmy Award-winning writer, also sits on the Writers Guild negotiating committee.

On Monday, Oprah Winfrey responded to allegations of child abuse at her school for South African girls. Farai Chideya talks about the press conference and what's to follow with Allison Samuels, a News & Notes contributor and national correspondent for Newsweek magazine.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There's an old saying that goes leaders are born not made. But scores of prominent people including Colin Powell argue that leadership is learned, so apparently does media mogul Oprah Winfrey.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: She founded a girls' leadership academy near Johannesburg, South Africa. But last week, claims of child abuse surfaced at Winfrey's Academy for Girls. One dorm matron faces 13 charges of indecent assault and injury for allegedly harming at least six students.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: During a press conference yesterday, Oprah Winfrey said she was devastated by the news and is conducting a private investigation. She also praised the students who reported the abuse.</s>Ms. OPRAH WINFREY (Founder, Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls): They represent, those 15 girls, the new generation of youth in South Africa who fearlessly take back their voices to speak up about their concern for their fellow classmates. This is really what we're trying to teach. This is what leadership is all about - to use your voice no matter what the personal consequences, so that abuse will end and good will prevail.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Here with more is Newsweek national correspondent Allison Samuels. Hey, Allison</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): Hey. How are you doing?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you visited the school and you saw Oprah interview people who wanted to work for the school. What do you think went wrong here?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): I think the main thing is that she hired people for the higher-up positions, for the sort of main positions, and I think she allowed them to choose the people who were sort of more the regular, you know, sort of dorm matron, for example. She didn't hire those people exactly. She hired the people on top. And I think that, you know, inevitably, you're going to have a bad apple. I think no matter how much you interview people or how many references they get, you can't be sure that everyone is going to be the right person. And, unfortunately, it has only been a year. It hasn't even been a year for the school. So I think that's the disadvantage of what's going on. And let's be clear, she's half a world away which makes it very hard for her to sort of monitor who's doing what.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): And also you're looking at girls who are mostly orphans, so I think, unfortunately, people can take advantage of girls like that because they feel like, who are they going to tell, but really - clearly, they did tell someone. But I'm sure that that was sort of the feeling of these girls are worlds away from their home, you know, I can do what I want to do and it's not going to get back. But, obviously, that's not the case. So - for Oprah, I feel bad for her because I know she went through a lot of effort and time to get the girls and the staff. And for this to happen less than year before the, you know, before the year anniversary, I can only imagine how devastated she is.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What do you think of her response and the press conference? Was it, in some ways, overkill and reverberating the story - not that people weren't paying attention.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): Right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Was this the kind of thing that actually laid out her plans and her vision or did it draw more attention to this?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): Well, I don't think the story was going to go away because it's Oprah. And let's be clear, she took such a hit when she opened the school. People were so critical about why did she open it up there and why she doesn't do more here. I think that she had to sort of answer, hey, I did it. I'm not apologizing for it, but this is what went wrong, and this is how I fix it. I think she had to sort of be pro-active on that because I think the story was not going to go away without her sort of explaining how this might have gone wrong.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): And also you have to see those girls. Those girls have already been through so much, had already been so damaged. I think she felt very strongly about saying, I'm going to help these girls get over this and move on.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There have already been other conversations reported that the parents of the students have complained that the school is too strict and they have too little access to their children - obviously, the children who are not orphans - what do you make of those allegations and were those mainly cleared up before this happened?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): I think that this is a work-in-progress. I mean, you know, she just opened the school. It hasn't been a year. I think this was something that - this is an undertaking no one's really done before there. So I think it's a lot of trial and error. And, you know, I could tell from what she was doing that it was going to be a strict school because there are so many activities she has them involved in. There are so many classes that they're taking. She's trying to expose them to so much, I think it doesn't really allow for them to go out much or to have people come in to visit them, particularly in the beginning. I think she's - because she's taken these kids away from their home base.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): And I think she was concerned that if they spend too much time with other people, they wouldn't able to handle being away. So I think there is a method to what she's trying to do, but I think the main thing is just trial and error. And, unfortunately, this has been a very hard year; some hard lessons for her.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, the woman who is accused of these molestations and attacks says that she didn't do it. Would Oprah run a risk of actually getting into legal - reverse legal action from someone like that?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): I mean, I - obviously, if she didn't do it, I mean, it's going to trial. So I would think that, at the end of the day, they're going to have to try - they're going to have to prove it: the investigators - and Oprah's hired her own investigators. But it's hard for me to imagine that after everything that's happened that they didn't pinpoint the person that is at least somewhat responsible for it. I think that given that South Africa is investigating and Oprah has her own people, I have to believe that they sort of narrowed it down to the right person at this point.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): We shall see, but I think the investigation is in continuing. So I think she's being clear. She doesn't want to have that happen where it's not the right person. I mean, because those girls are still in that school; she doesn't need this to happen again. So she has to make extra sure she has the person, you know, that's responsible for it. So I don't at all think that she has the wrong person.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Oprah Winfrey herself has talked about being molested, abused as a child. There's no doubt that she must view this school as an accomplishment and this as a huge personal setback. How do you think that plays out with how she's put her life story out front and center?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): Well, I think that's probably the saddest part about this is that, you know, this is what she built the school for: to avoid that, to sort of give these girls a new life and a life where they didn't have to worry about poverty and things like that, and that - like, things that a lot of them were suffering from. So I think that for her, like I said, I can only imagine that she's just hurt to the core because she couldn't protect them from this, and I think it also shows that sometimes you can't protect your children all the time.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): I think that's sort of the saddest part about it. No matter how hard you try, your children are still sort of vulnerable to other people sort of getting in there and having, you know, having, you know, having some impact on them negatively. So I think that's the reality of it. And I think Oprah's always tried to sort of be real and honest about these are the sort of, you know, negatives that are out there, and you just have to find a way to deal with them.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What do you think lies ahead?</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): What I think - for her? I think the school will continue, you know, to sort of go on. I think she will keep her head up and, you know, continue to sort of push it through and just use this as an example of how these girls have been able to, you know, they're resilient. They're going to get over this and become the leaders she wants them to be.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Allison, thank you so much.</s>Ms. ALLISON SAMUELS (National Correspondent, Newsweek): Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Allison Samuels is a national correspondent for Newsweek magazine. She joined me here at our NPR West Studios. And you can watch all of Oprah's press conference by going to our blog nprnewsandviews.org.

For analysis of news and events from Africa, Farai Chideya talks with Emira Woods, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. They discuss the growing number of women in politics and leadership positions in Africa.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya, and this is NEWS & NOTES.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's time now for our Africa update. Today, sisters are doing it for themselves. We're talking about the women leaders of Africa. Yesterday, President Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to seven people including Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. She is the first woman elected to head an African country.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: President GEORGE W. BUSH: All her life, President Sirleaf has been a pioneer. The daughter of a school teacher in Monrovia, she crossed the ocean as a young woman and earned three degrees in the United States. She's been a business executive, a development expert, a public official and always a patriot. She loves Liberia, and she loves all its people.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So how much progress have women made in leadership across the continent? We've got Emira Woods to give us some perspective. She is co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute of Policies Studies. Hi, Emira.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): How are you, Farai?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm doing great. So you're from Liberia. What does this honor mean for your country?</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Well, it is extraordinary that Liberia, after a history of 26 years of war, emerges with Africa's first woman president. And we are really happy to have, not only the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, but, you know, of high distinction of addressing both members of Congress and a number of distinctions coming her way. So it's exciting.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): But it is, Farai, really, on the symbolic end. And what we're hoping for as Liberians and member of African community overall is that these symbolic measures are actually backed up by concrete actions on debt cancellation for Liberia and on other real concrete steps that the Bush administration can take to actually impact women's lives in Liberia and around the continent.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, before Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was elected president in 2006, how was the balance of power in terms of gender? Were there a lot of female elected officials or female leaders in Liberia?</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Well, you know, Liberia has a mixed history. Back in the 1960s, Liberia was actually one of the first countries to send a woman to the United Nations as United Nations ambassador, so by - in, like, 1967, '68, Liberia was represented by a woman at the U.N. So there have been some incredible instances of women's political leadership and there - those have also followed in civil society throughout Liberia. There have been instances of women leaders.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): However, over the past years, it has been men dominating and, in particular, the Samuel Does, the Charles Taylors - some really ruthless men dominating the political scene in Liberia.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Is there a program akin to affirmative action in the U.S. that deals with any of these gender issues?</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Well, there is beginning to be discussion of that, and it is happening in some ways in Liberia both looking at the legislator and changes that can be put in place to help bring about a greater participation of women in political office. But that's just beginning in Liberia. I think there are many other countries that are much further along in terms of affirmative action through constitutional changes and other party political changes that have been taking place.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, let's move on to Rwanda. It's a nation that's rebuilding itself after genocide. And now, women make up nearly half of parliament. That is more than any other parliamentary body in the world. What's behind the trend?</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): It is absolutely extraordinary to see what has happened. Most people assumed that, you know, the men were killed in the genocide. But if you look at the numbers, actually, the population of women is about 50 percent. And the population of women reflected in parliament is about 50 percent. So it isn't reflective of any dramatic changes in the population. But it is women's political leadership at all levels that's emerging because there was a commitment made right after the genocide, essentially, to change the constitution, to change the political party structures, to put in place concrete quotas for women.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): And so you see at every level - from municipal to regional to national elections - you see a space being opened for women. Thirty percent in many cases, women mandated in these posts as candidates and it carries forward that as women are learning leadership roles at those local levels, they continue to advance their leadership all the way through to the national level. And this is what you see reflected with 50 percent of their parliament controlled by women.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Are there any specific ways in which women have helped shape the destiny of Rwanda after the war?</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Well, that's been the enormous potential here of women's political leadership. If you see the research that's been done on Rwanda, in particular, indicates that there are changes in women's impact in broader processes. So there is greater funding for health, for education. Those essential services needed to have healthy, sustainable lives. You see a greater amount of the national budget being directed at those essential services.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): So, you know, I think when we look at Rwanda and other countries like Rwanda that have made this commitment to women's political leadership, we see the potential of women, not only impacting the political processes, but impacting the very nature of people's lives at the household level through these policies that are being put in place.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, moving on again to South Africa. There's another rise in women leaders. There's also been some legislation that has allowed that to happen or encouraged that to happen. Give us a sense of that.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Well, again, South Africa - also Mozambique, Namibia - there are a number of African countries that have made constitutional changes. They have changed, amended their constitutions to create a space for women's political leadership. In the case of South Africa as with Mozambique and Namibia, there are mandated quotas put into the constitution as well as into political party platforms that actually mandate a quota for women's participation. So it is affirmative action, but it is bringing forward women's political leadership.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): And again, you have South Africa; at least 30 percent of the parliament being women. In Mozambique, it's 34 percent. And, Farai, just for comparison, here in the U.S., it's about 15 percent. Now, all the attention and honor to Nancy Pelosi, but it has not really come up to the level of women's representation in even the U.S. population, not even close. So if you see these advances being made by African countries, you realize that Africa is actually leading the world in the right direction.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There is actually at least a possibility that a woman could head the African Union. Tell me about that.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Oh, well, that's been another extraordinary thing. Now, people talk about the change from the organization of African Union set up in the 1960s to the African Union set up just five years ago. And I have to say, Farai, one of the biggest changes has been the open political space for women. So right at the start, the African Union, when it formed, created this Pan-African Parliament, you know, bringing together representatives from all over the continent to set Africa's priorities by Africans for Africans. And one of the first steps they did was to actually put at the head of the Pan-African Parliament a woman.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): Gertrude Mongella was the first head of the Pan-African Parliament. And then each of the delegations from all of the African countries were, again, mandated. There was a quota in place that at least two, but in many cases, it's three or four of the five representatives from each of those countries have to - have been women.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): So you see an open space for women in the Pan-African Parliament, in the head of the African Union, Pan-African Parliament, but also now, in January, we're heading towards a critical election within the African Union for just the second chair. And there's a woman coming forward who could well take on the leadership of the African Union Commission. So the overall head of the African Union could transfer from Konare, the former president of Mali, to, potentially, a woman ambassador right here in Washington.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): I think it's also noteworthy that the first African Union ambassador to Washington is also a woman. Ambassador Ali has been installed just for six months now. But I think it, again - indicates the commitment that the African Union has made to women's political participation and the political space that's been opened up for women.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): So it's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Yes, but throughout the continent, there are women that are actually taking the lead in political decision-making right across the continent.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Emira, thank you so much.</s>Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute of Policy Studies): It's a pleasure, Farai. Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Emira Woods is co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. She was at our headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Former Washington Post reporter Patrice Gaines volunteers for a river clean-up near her home in Lake Wylie, S.C., and gets some unexpected gifts in return.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For this week's Snapshot, it's a dispatch from the banks of the Catawba River; that's in Lake Wylie, South Carolina, the turf of former Washington Post reporter Patrice Gaines. She once volunteered to collect trash from the river. and she found some unexpected gifts.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): I give to the river and the river gives to me. This is my mantra early one cloudy morning as bend and dig between rocks to pry loose a soda can then a plastic cup. There are over 200 of us volunteers. We have donned our shorts and sweats to participate in a cleaning up of my community's lake, which is fed by the Catawba River.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): I give to the river and the river gives to me. This is the message in my head when I wake up on this morning and put on my oldest pair of tennis shoes. Dale(ph), my neighbor, is glad to volunteer. She loves the river as much as I do.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): I give to the river and the river gives to me. I think of this as a promise between two friends. I have spent so many days staring at the lake, watching the reflection of the sun sparkle on its waters, seeing the great blue ripples turn brown after the wind has licked at the banks and tossed turgid(ph) to the blue. Now it is my turn to pay back to help make my friend more beautiful, healthier, cleaner.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): Dale pulls a dirty diaper from the black rocks at the river's edge, and we both turned up our noses and clicked our tongues in disgust. Tsk, what human being thought it was okay to throw away a diaper on a river bank? When someone asked for volunteers to get on a boat and ride across the lake to pull trash out along another bank, Dale and I would volunteer. By this time, we believe we have plucked all the debris we can from the small area of earth that has been our domain for over an hour.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): I give to the river and the river gives to me, I think, as I sink into the soft leather of the Pontoon boat that cuts through the water. Greg(ph), a volunteer we have just met, is driving, and he stops the boat near a huge lakefront home. We each step into the water and walk ashore. I tug at a long strip of bright green, indoor-outdoor carpet until I have loosened it from the rocks. I also discover a child's life vest, a tennis shoe, a blanket, and the never-ending bits of paper and debris we have been finding all morning.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): Dale and Greg drag another large piece of the green carpet and find large chunks of tires. Walking back to the boat, we sink deep into the mud of the riverbed. Dale is ahead of me, and she screams and laughs as she sinks. I am right behind her. My right foot gets stuck. The mud puts up a fight if I try to wiggle free. My foot just sinks deeper. Finally, I make it to the boat. Dale laughs hysterically at my one shoe that is totally globbed in heavy black mud.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): When the cleanup is over, we get free hotdogs and hamburgers and raffle tickets. Though neither Dale nor I win anything, we feel like champions as we stand on the deck of the restaurant and toss potato chips to the ducks.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): In the newspaper that week, they quote someone from Catawba River Keeper Foundation. The spokesperson said that volunteers pulled 17 tons of trash from the lake, including 400 bags of garbage, 200 tires and three car bumpers.</s>Mr. PATRICE GAINES (Former Reporter, Washington Post): BY the next day, I am back to my regular morning routine. I walk a path in the neighborhood. I go up hills and under trees, and when I round the curve, I spot my friend. There are no other volunteers around. We are alone. She is thankful for my gift to her. She tells me in her own way. Her arms are open wide as usual. She is shimmering, flowing, giving.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That was reporter-turned-writing-coach Patrice Gaines with this week's Snapshot. She told her story from member station WFAE in Charlotte, North Carolina

Merrill Lynch has given CEO Stanley O'Neal the boot. Is it bad news for African Americans climbing the corporate ladder? Farai Chideya talks with Alfred Edmond, Jr., senior vice president and editor-in-chief of Black Enterprise.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: The head of one of America's biggest financial management company stepped down last weekend. E. Stanley O'Neal served as the CEO for Merrill Lynch for six years before retiring. O'Neal was one of only a few black CEOs ever to be appointed by a Fortune 500 company. And under O'Neal, Merrill Lynch made some investment moves that were pretty risky even for a banking giant. So was O'Neal just being responsible leading by stepping down or did his race make him an easy target of Merrill's board of directors?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Here to talk with me now about the career and legacy of E. Stanley O'Neal, we've got Alfred Edmond Jr. He's senior vice president and editor-in-chief of Black Enterprise.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Welcome.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Mr. ALFRED EDMOND JR. (Editor-in-chief; Senior Vice President, Black Enterprise): Hey, how are you doing?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm doing great.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So I mentioned that O'Neal led the company into making some risky investment boost. Can you explain to me, simply, some of the decisions he made that might have led to this?</s>Mr. EDMOND: Well, it's important to understand that O'Neal didn't make this decision in a vacuum. As you know, the whole nation is caught up in this kind of mortgage crisis in which a lot of the national institutions, including Merrill Lynch, invested in mortgage bank securities. And now you see a lot of foreclosures and mortgage problems coming on and that's having impact on all the financial services companies. In fact, O'Neal is not the only executive who's had to step down in light of all of this and there's probably going to be some more people.</s>Mr. EDMOND: What basically happened is - I'd say that what O'Neal did wasn't really more risky than what anybody else is doing but, obviously, when you come up with a billion dollar loss that has to be explained.</s>The simple thing is this: there are region of rejection of the loss for this particular quarter was less than half of what it turned out to be and that, I think, was the biggest, biggest deal. I don't think of it so much that he was doing more riskier deals than anyone else, but I think he sent a negative signal to the shareholders and other people observing the company, that if you say it's going to be one thing and it turned out to be twice as much, you know, maybe it's worse than we think it is.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What does it mean to have had O'Neal at the head of this investment bank? What will it mean over time, if anything, that he will no longer be the head of Merrill Lynch?</s>Mr. EDMOND: Well, it won't mean anything that he will no longer be at the head. You know, as I've said before, these aren't jobs that last a lifetime. I mean, he did a great job up until 2006 when everybody was benefitting from the boom and the growth in mortgages and investing in mortgage bank securities. The tide, obviously, has turned in the past year, but I think the first four to five years of success as the head of Merrill Lynch is going to mean a lot more than this past year that resulted in him having to resign. The reason of this is…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So a lot more to whom?</s>Mr. EDMOND: Say that again?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: A lot more to whom?</s>Mr. EDMOND: To African-Americans who are setting sights on what they can accomplish both on Wall Street and in corporate American as a whole. I mean, the reality is you got a former, you know, cotton-picker from Alabama rise to run for five years, you know, one of the largest, most storied, you know, Wall Street companies. And I think what that does is send a message to other aspiring African-Americans and other minorities that at least it's possible.</s>Mr. EDMOND: And also we're learning some lessons about what it means to be a CEO. It's a high-risked, high-reward job when you're doing well. And we all know about CEO compensation, these bonuses that they're getting, and the benefits and perks, but it's also a high-risked job in that if you have a bad year or even a bad quarter, the axe could fall on you faster than it might fall on just a rank-and-file employee in the company.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How much do African-American CEOs influenced the landscape of money and race? What I mean by that is, there are many occupations where a black people are overrepresented and other ones where black people are underrepresented including finance, if you have a black CEO, whether it's a Parson's, whether it's an O'Neal, does that mean that there's going to be ripple effect of really looking at hiring strong black candidates throughout the company or is that not necessarily the case?</s>Mr. EDMOND: Well, I think of various company - the company and the reality is since there're still relatively few. It's hard to really draw conclusions about what the broader impact is. I mean, you're still talking about less than - even before Stanley O'Neal's resignation - less than 10 instead of Fortune 1000 is 1 percent. So it's probably too early to tell in the history of America and corporate America when you can draw some broader conclusions about what it means to have a black CEO.</s>Mr. EDMOND: I will say that if you look at it from company to company, there are some impacts that a black CEO can have both intentionally and just symbolically a, you know, if yours is a company that has a black CEO running the company, it automatically sends a message to you as a person of color who may be striving in that company. Your perception is going to be that at least it's possible for me to advance in the company. It may not happen but it's at least possible.</s>Mr. EDMOND: I remember once, I was interviewing the former chairman of Xerox, Dave Kearns, who is not black - he's white - but he was saying that, you know, most of the white men who get hired by corporation, they're not going to end up becoming CEO, but the difference is that in their minds they have a belief that they can get there if they want to. And what we have to change is the perception among minorities that they can get there too.</s>Mr. EDMOND: And I think when you look at O'Neal, when you look at Ken Chenault of American Express, when you look at Dick Parsons at Time Warner, when you look at somebody like Renetta McCann at Starcom, at least now you have enough faces in the place that young person coming in to corporate American, because they will, at least, there's a possibility I can get there. And that's the biggest impact, I think.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, thank you so much.</s>Mr. EDMOND: My pleasure.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Alfred Edmond Jr. is senior vice president and editor-in-chief of Black Enterprise.

News & Notes Web producer Geoffrey Bennett talks with Farai Chideya about the stories building buzz on our blog, including listener reaction to a recent bloggers' roundtable segment about a statue of rapper Tupac Shakur.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From Tupac to Genarlow to Wall Street, our blog News & Views lets you have your say on the headlines and about our show. NEWS & NOTES Web producer Geoffrey Bennett is here to tell us all about it.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Hey, Geoffrey.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Hey, Farai.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So on Monday's Bloggers' Roundtable, we talked about a noose that was found hanging around the neck of rapper Tupac Shakur's memorial statue. And I understand some listeners took offense to that conversation. They said so on our blog. What's up?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Yeah. They're offended not by our coverage of our story but by the bloggers reaction to it. One guest in particular thought that Tupac's statue itself was pretty funny.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Here's what happened.</s>Ms. LIZA SABATER (Founder, Culture Kitchen): The statue itself - did you see it?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Why don't you tell us…</s>Ms. LIZA SABATER (Founder, Culture Kitchen): It doesn't look like him.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell us a little bit about the statue. I've heard a lot of criticism of what the statue actually looks like, which is why you're laughing.</s>Ms. LIZA SABATER (Founder, Culture Kitchen): It looks nothing like him.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: So that's what happened. So I have to say it, most people who I know saw the statue had very similar reactions, saying it looked nothing like Tupac, but, you know, his much, much older uncle. But I remember…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I believe Liza Sabater called it Uncle Ben.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Right, exactly. And on our blog, a reader named Joan Brooks(ph) said she was, quote, "disappointed by the ignorance in school yard, giggling and name-calling." And a couple of other readers agreed with her. But all told, I'm sure our bloggers meant no disrespecting.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: On our blog, there's a photo of the statue so people can go and look at it and make up their own minds about it.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So we've been covering Genarlow Wilson, the 21-year-old who was released from a Georgia prison after facing a 10-year sentence for a teen sex conviction. How's that been playing out on the blog?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Well, you know, reaction to Wilson's imprisonment and his release never reached the fever-pitch of, say, the Jena Six coverage. But on our blog and elsewhere, people seem to express a sentiment that justice for Genarlow was slow in coming and they're glad it they finally did.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: One reader, Daniel Holloway(ph), summed it up this way. He wrote: This case shows the problem with trying to interpret the laws based on wording rather than intent. I'm glad Wilson was freed. Bravo to the Georgia Supreme Court, he wrote.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So we also have another installment of the online series, Speak Your Mind.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: We do. It's a series where we allow our readers to write at length about an issue of their choosing. This week we have piece by filmmaker Tambay Obenson. He calls for autonomous black-owned film companies. He says that cinema informs and educates, and when you're not at present, you're not valued. And that piece has sparked a lot of conversation about filmmakers like Tyler Perry and Spike Lee.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So what else is popping off?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Well, Stan O'Neal, having left Merrill Lynch, and rumors about Dick Parsons leaving Time Warner that would leave three black CEOs so people are talking about the impact that that might have.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: They're talking about Barack Obama's presidential campaign, finally putting a nail in the coffin on that controversy about Obama and his ties to gospel singer Donny McClurkin. And they're also talking about your interview yesterday with Nikki Giovanni.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Fantastic. Geoff, thanks so much.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Geoffrey Bennett is the Web producer for NEWS & NOTES, and he joined me at our studios at NPR West.