Datasets:

karukas

/

mediasum-summary-matching

like 1

Someone in a courthouse in Oklahoma noticed bed bugs crawling on one of the lawyers present.

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Good morning. I'm David Greene. A county courthouse in Oklahoma had to be temporarily shut down this week because of bedbugs. And it is clear how they got there. The Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton told NBC2 in Tulsa that a lawyer walked into a courtroom with bedbugs literally falling from his clothing. No mention of whether the lawyer was creating this chaos intentionally, though the sheriff did say the lawyer shook his jacket over prosecutors' files.

The Oregonian reports that because of bad weather, this Sunday's Worst Day of the Year bike ride will move to Feb. 24, when organizers are promising a better Worst Day ride.

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Good morning, I'm David Greene. Isn't it bad enough if your community has to poke fun at itself by planning a Worst Day of the Year Bike Ride? Portland, Ore., holds this annual event in February, when, most years, it is awfully cold and wet. Can't get any worse, right? - well, until the worst day of the year has to be postponed because of ice. The Oregonian reports this Sunday's ride will move to February 24, when organizers are promising a better Worst Day ride.

Some lawmakers argue Judge Southwick's spotty civil rights record makes him unfit to serve on the federal court of appeals. Farai Chideya continues the conversation with Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), who opposes his confirmation.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Others still have concerns about Judge Southwick. One of them is Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan. She's also the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congresswoman, welcome.</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): Hello. How are you? Good to be with you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Thank you. So what makes you hesitant about Judge Southwick's nomination?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): Judge Southwick's judicial record - his record of partiality and unfairness to women, to the environment, to the workplace, to civil liberties, to justice - it has the nothing to do with the man personally. I don't know him personally. We only go by his record, and his record shows that he'll be a disservice with this lifetime appointment on the second highest court in America, to all the - most of the people in America. And it's unfortunate that the Senate saw fit to pass him on.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, there were Democrats in the Senate, among them Dianne Feinstein of California who did confirm the nomination. What are your thoughts on that?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): It's unfortunate. I speak for the people of America. And when you disenfranchise women, people of color, the environment, the work place, a highly racial partial judge, I don't, you know, I don't fault any senator for what they did. All we do is based on the record. The record of Justice Leslie Southwick is appalling as it relates to most Americans. And we think it's unfortunate that the Senate confirmed him for this lifetime appointment.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Which one of his decisions disturbs you the most?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): They all, they all disturb us the most. You talk about his jury pools that he worked with in his court - he had 180 (unintelligible) court cases and he always rules against the citizens and the consumers for a big business. That's appalling. Women's rights and issues, the environment, you name it, not to mention the racist behavior that he's shown in his court, you know, here before. So there's a long litany of his record. And if anyone would check his record, he not only shouldn't have been confirmed, he should not have been nominated in the first place.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There's an agreement in the Senate that says members would only block the president's judicial nominations due to extraordinary circumstances. Do you feel this is an extraordinary circumstance?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): Absolutely. For all the reasons I've already mentioned, it's extra extraordinary. When President Clinton was in office, the Senate held by a majority of Republicans set(ph) on all his judicial nominations for two years. There was no reason - they failed to appoint the senator in his fifth circuit on two other times with unrelenting, unworthy appointments, and they had no business giving this gentleman this lifetime appointment. There's no one agree (unintelligible) of unfair judicial prudence that this judge has had over and over and over again.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So what types of cases might the judge have to make decisions on in the future? What are you most afraid of, perhaps?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): You have all kinds of cases. This is the United States Court of Appeals - the last stop for most Americans. Most American cases don't get to the Supreme Court. This is a penal court. Somehow we have all cases from work place to justice, to civil liberties, to women, to the environment, you name it. He will be over all of those and the last stop for many Americans and the less fortunate.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, you are the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. You…</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): And I speak for the Congressional Black Caucus 100 percent on this issue.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What role do you think that members like yourself, members of the Caucus, can play in a nation where, of course, you have the executive, the legislative and the judiciary - and all of those branches have different effects on civil rights - what can you and what can the CBC do?</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): We will continue to work together - 43 members from 21 states representing over 40 million Americans in those states, plus people of color all over America - to speak out for injustice, to fight the battles, the mobilize our elected so that we have better people in office, in Congress, in the Senate - yes - and in the presidency. For all of that, it's what we must do. There are several little Senators who are up this year, 2008, excuse me, we will regret in their constituents know how they voted on this Southwick issue, be they Republican or Democrat. We've got to mobilize America or else the children of America will never have justice and opportunity that our Constitution said they must have.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Congresswoman, thank you very much.</s>Representative CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (Democrat, Michigan; Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus): Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan also chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is set to unveil her environmental plan. Multiple political scandals envelop Virginia. An update on the Camp Fire which destroyed the town of Paradise, Calif.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Today, dozens of Democrats in the House of Representatives state their priorities in fighting climate change.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah. They're offering legislation that has been labeled a Green New Deal. And the lawmakers involved include one just arrived, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, to our country and to the world.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Now, Ocasio-Cortez is a freshman, among the least-senior members of the House. But the self-described democratic socialist has received enormous attention since upsetting a senior New York lawmaker in a primary last year.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: With dozens of co-sponsors, she presents a resolution today. It would promote wind and solar energy and call for the U.S. to have net-zero carbon emissions in 10 years. She talked about this in an NPR interview.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: The thing about a Green New Deal is that it's not an outright ban on any source of energy. And that's my opinion, as one member of Congress. And one of the big goals that we have is that we're trying to just sketch out a blueprint and work with other members to get there.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR political editor Domenico Montanaro is here and has been reading an advance copy of that blueprint - that resolution. Hi there, Domenico.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So what's it say?</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: You know, this is a nonbinding resolution. And as we noted, some of what it does - you know, being carbon neutral by 2030 is one of those things that a lot of experts say is not only ambitious, but almost impossible to pull off. Experts shoot for more like 2050, and that's considered ambitious. It would also eliminate most, if not all, air travel, in fact, because of how it wants to restructure things like high-speed rail - so very ambitious - not a lot of specifics as far as how to get to those things, but certainly laying down a marker for where liberals want to go in addressing climate change.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Largely eliminate air travel, which is considered to be really bad for our planet - for carbon levels in the atmosphere, trying to get people in a different - in different direction. But you're saying it's - essentially, it's a set of notions or ideas. It would actually require big legislation later to enact these ideas.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Yeah, or small legislation, having to enact various numbers of these ideas to flesh this out. And it's going to be a really difficult thing to actually enact as far as getting it on the floor because getting it to a vote is not something that a lot of moderate Democrats are going to be wanting to, you know, have to walk the plank on, frankly.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, well, let's talk about that. What would the reluctance be of Democratic leaders to buy into this Green New Deal notion?</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Well, it's a plan that would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars, to be quite honest. And it's not something that would ever pass the Republican-controlled Senate. Now, you know, all of that is practical and looking at the actual politics of the day.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Of course, liberals are going to say that this is, you know, a bold step forward that they can argue for and win people over on. And that very well may be the case. But Democrats in 2009 took a step with cap and trade, which was far less dramatic than this plan would be. It passed the House, didn't pass the Senate. And a lot of Democrats feel like they suffered some consequences along with the passage of Obamacare in the 2010 midterm elections.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: And let's remember the reason Democrats won in the 2018 midterms - while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is able to get so much attention for herself and for her - the things that she wants to do, this election was really won on the backs of moderates.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, moderates who were able to win in suburban areas that had been Republican before.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Right.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Domenico, thanks so much.</s>DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: You're so welcome.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Domenico Montanaro.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: All right. When President Trump delivered his State of the Union speech the other night, almost all members of Congress and almost all members of the Cabinet attended. One Cabinet member was the designated survivor - designated to stay away just in case of calamity.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, in the state of Virginia, if they were to take that precaution, it might need to designate one top official to hide out from scandal. The top three officials in that state are all facing serious questions now.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Governor Ralph Northam faces pressure to resign over an old racist photo. The lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, is publicly accused by a woman who says he sexually assaulted her in 2004. And now the state's third-ranking official, Attorney General Mark Herring, has admitted that he donned blackface at a college party in the '80s.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Sarah McCammon, a resident of Virginia, has been following all this and is in our studio. Sarah, good morning.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So Lieutenant Governor Fairfax has been fending off these allegations for a number of days, but now the woman who accused him has stepped forward with a written statement. What have you learned?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Right. And her name is Vanessa Tyson. We had not been naming her until yesterday, when she came forward to tell her story. She's a politics professor at Scripps College in California and currently a fellow at Stanford. And in a detailed statement, she says, quote, "what began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault," she says, by Justin Fairfax. This was in 2004, she says, at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: They were both working at the convention, right? They were staying in a hotel.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: They were both there. And they met there.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: And where the story gets more complicated is it initially surfaced on a conservative blog based on a private social media post that Tyson had made where she appeared to allude to this. And she also had told her story to The Washington Post over a year ago. They checked it out, said they couldn't corroborate either version of events and decided not to publish.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: But now, she says this has all come out, and she wants to set the record straight. She says she's coming forward with tremendous anguish, though, to tell her story.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Fairfax originally said, when vaguer versions of this story were out there, this is a political smear. What is he saying now that more specific allegations are public?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: He's repeatedly denied this. And in a new statement yesterday, he says Tyson's allegations are surprising and hurtful, but he has to dispute her version of events. And he also said he wanted to emphasize how important it is to listen to women when they come forward.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: We should also note he's retained a law firm - the same one that represented Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings when he was accused of sexual assault. And now the National Organization for Women is calling for Fairfax to resign.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So the big picture here - we have a governor who's been accused involving this old racist photo. We have the lieutenant governor with the allegations we just discussed. The attorney general, who is No. 3 in the line of succession, has said he wore blackface at one time. Don't have any indications that any of these officials would resign. But what if? What if all three of them did have to resign?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Well, we should say, Steve, they're all three Democrats. So this creates challenges for the Democratic Party on a number of levels, one of which is that the No. 4 in line is the House speaker, who is a Republican. His name is Kirk Cox.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: And you may remember that weird election about a year ago, where there was an undecided House race in Virginia that had to be decided by casting lots.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, because they were so close.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Because it was so close.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: There was a drawing to decide the winner of that one legislative seat.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: That went to a Republican. Republicans stayed in control of the Virginia House of Delegates.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: By that one seat.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: By that one seat. And now Kirk Cox, their speaker, is No. 4 in line for the governorship. So it is a mess in Virginia right now.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. And we'll continue listening for your reporting on that mess. Sarah, thanks so much.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Sarah McCammon.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: It's been three months since the most destructive and deadliest fire in California history burned almost the entire town of Paradise.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah. The Camp Fire also wiped out 15 percent of housing stock in a county overnight. Now, while some residents have left, others with less means have had no choice but to camp out on their properties. But here's the thing. The federal government says they won't pay for a cleanup if people are living there. You can imagine this is not very popular. The mayor of Paradise, Jody Jones, says there's no choice but to somehow take in federal aid.</s>JODY JONES: If we don't do it, our town will look like a war zone for the next 20 years because we are broke.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Kirk Siegler has been traveling in Paradise. He joins us now. Hi, Kirk.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Hey, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What's the town look like?</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Well, you know, when you heard the mayor there - Mayor Jones saying it's a war zone, that's not an exaggeration. I've been up there for about a month reporting a longer-term project. And every time I drive around the town, it's still just shocking to look at.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: It's rubble. You know, it's billed as a town, but it was really a city of 25,000 people. The Safeway's gone. Whole neighborhoods are gone. Fast-food restaurants are still leveled. And they're still in that state three months on. There just really hasn't been a whole lot of recovery yet.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: And that burned area where people can't live on their burned-out properties was declared a public health disaster for a reason. You can't drink the water, still, in Paradise. The are - benzene's seeping into the water supply. There's other toxins in the ash when the wind blows up. It's - Sarah said mess. It's still a mess in Paradise.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Do you, nevertheless, run into residents from time to time as you move about town?</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: You do. And there was some sort of ruckus - public meetings this week over the proposals to ban camping again for residents, who had been told that they could move back, and now they can't. And this is a big source of tension, as you can imagine, because the town is basically a skeleton. And there was already a housing shortage before the fire, so if people are able to hang on and try to hold out and wait for the recovery, you know, it's not sure where they'll even live.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: I met Martha Bryant, who was born and raised in Paradise. And, you know, she called this week, you know, yet another setback. And she worries that more people will just give up and leave.</s>MARTHA BRYANT: It's their property. They're adults. They know the risks. We don't need other people - the county and everybody else - telling us how we should live our lives.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: And, Steve, you know, this was - this is a rural part of the country where there was a lot of mistrust of the government already before the fire. And when a disaster like this happens, you know, at least for now, places like this are basically wholly dependent on federal and state aid to even just recover.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What reassurances and plans are officials offering?</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Well, just the toxic debris removal itself - the cleanup, they're saying, will hopefully just take a few months for some residents, but it could be a year or more. A lot of people I talked to expect it to be at least a year. You know, federal disaster officials say they have not seen a, you know, toxic debris removal like this in this country since 9/11.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: So there's a whole lot of work to be done even before the town can start asking the bigger questions. Should it rebuild? And how should it rebuild in a high-risk zone like that?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Kirk, thanks very much for your reporting, and we look forward, also, to that long-term project when you're done.</s>KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Glad to do it. Thanks, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Kirk Siegler, who has been traveling in Paradise, Calif.

Farai Chideya talks with Ill. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., son of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson. Jackson, Jr., is supporting Barack Obama for president and has stepped up his support with a one-minute radio ad.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Maybe politics is like a game of kickball - everyone wants their friends and the folks with the muscle on their team, except in the world of presidential politics who choose a team by endorsements, pledges of loyalty from business leaders, celebrities and other politicians. Heavy hitters are starting to publicly announce their vote for president. Representative John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights struggle, chose to endorse Senator Hillary Clinton. And last week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a former Justice Department official for President Bill Clinton, chose Barack Obama. Now Senator Obama gets even more support from a congressman who's also the son of a civil rights leader. We're talking about Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat from Chicago.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In a one-minute radio ad, Jackson recalls 1988, the year when his father won South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Representative JESSE JACKSON JR. (Democrat, Chicago): Once, South Carolina voted for my father and sent a strong message to the nation. Next year, you can send more than a message. You can launch a president.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: With us now, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Welcome.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Hello, Farai.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How you doing and how does your father feel about invoking his legacy, running this ad in South Carolina?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Well, Reverend Jackson is a supporter of Barack Obama. He's known Barack most of his life. And Reverend Jackson knows that I served as one of Barack's national chairpersons of his campaign. I'm proud of Barack's effort. He has shown the right judgment needed to lead our country and to rebuild our moral standing in the world. And so I was proud that the senator asked me to participate in this radio advertisement. And I'm fairly confident that the people of South Carolina will hear our message.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now the latest AP poll has African-Americans split down the middle between Obama and Clinton in the presidential race. What is the senator going to do including your ad to really try to reach the African-American voting population?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Well, remember now, the first contest - the early contests are in Iowa; the next contest in New Hampshire where there's a minimal African-American populations. But South Carolina, nearly 40 percent, almost 50 percent of the general election ballot - nearly 40 percent of the general election electorate are African-Americans in South Carolina. South Carolina has a strong and historic opportunity to send a strong message to the rest of the nation about the future of our country.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How long do you think that Senator Obama has to reach black voters and other voters in the sense that there's going to be a flood of primaries? When do you think is a make-or-break moment for him?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Well, like all other campaigns, the primary dates, the caucus dates are set in stone, and so the senator has roughly 100-day sprint to make the case his message of hope, his message of the new politics to the American people. We are running very strong in Iowa. We've always known that maintaining the kind of super pressed sensitivity to Barack would be very difficult to maintain. It's the holiday season now.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And as the American people begin to focus on this campaign at the turn of the year, at the beginning of the New Year, I'm fairly confident that the American people will look anew and look afresh at Barack Obama. And they won't vote for the politics of the past, they'll vote for the politics of the future. The American people tend to vote, Farai, their hopes not their fears. And so you can't scare people into voting. You have to provide them with the vision and with hope, and I believe the Obama campaign will do just that.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now what about the racial politics of running for president in America? You have unprecedented moment where a white woman and African-American man are vying for the top spot in terms of the Democratic field. This ad that you have done is very specific - referring to our community - issues like racial profiling. Will it reach - hit the right spot in the black community and/or will it distance others of other races?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Well, I hope it does hit the right spot. Barack Obama is not speaking as a friend of the community; he is speaking as part of the community - he's one of us. He directly relates to the struggles within the African-American community. You know, when my father ran for president in '84 and '88, it was all for the legacy and a history from 1960 to the time he announced his candidacy in 1984 on speaking to issues of civil rights and social justice for African-Americans primarily, but for all Americans. And so Reverend Jackson started with an African-American base. But the political reality of America, to make America better for everyone, Reverend Jackson acknowledged that he had to build a Rainbow Coalition.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now we have Barack Obama, inheritor of the Rainbow Coalition, a broad base cross-section of Americans who support him who must now do just the opposite of Reverend Jackson's effort. He has a rainbow. He now comes to show up the base, and that's where African-American leaders can measure this candidacy by one standard. Give Barack Obama the opportunity to speak to all Americans about their hopes, about their concerns, about their future, and not limit him to a segment of the population. After all, Barack Obama is not running for mayor of New Orleans, he's not running for mayor of Detroit, he's not running for mayor of Washington, D.C.; he's running for president of the United States, for all Americans. And his candidacy deserves that chance.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Very briefly, do you think that in the time between your father's historic runs in 1994 and 1998 and now America has changed enough to have a black man as president?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Well, I think, very briefly, the question is: Since the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, are all Americans willing to move in a different direction? And I think it's becoming increasingly clear that they are. In 1776, Hillary Clinton could not be the nominee of our party, neither could Barack Obama. In - 1863, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could not be the nominee of our party. And for sure as I'm sitting here, one of them will be at the nominee in 2008, and that's because America is constantly becoming a better nation.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Congressman, thank you so much.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Rep. JACKSON JR.: Farai, thank you for having me.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We've been speaking with Jesse Jackson Jr. He's a Democratic U.S. representative from Illinois.

The NASA Day of Remembrance honors the NASA astronauts and staff who gave their lives in the name of exploration. The day was postponed a week due to the partial government shutdown.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Today, NASA, the space agency, marks its Day of Remembrance. Memorials are being held at NASA facilities around this country to honor astronauts and agency staff who sacrificed their lives for the mission. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine says it's an important moment.</s>JIM BRIDENSTINE: We think about the human lives that were lost, but we also think about how the world is different today because of those sacrifices - different in a very good way.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Now, this Day of Remembrance had been originally scheduled for last week, but the partial government shutdown forced a delay. This event is held this time of year because of a twist of fate. Three deadly NASA accidents were clustered within the same week of the calendar, even though they were decades apart.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: This is a CBS News Special Report.</s>MIKE WALLACE: America's first three Apollo astronauts were trapped and killed by a flash fire that swept their moon ship early tonight during a launch pad test at Cape Kennedy.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That was the distinctive voice of Mike Wallace of CBS News speaking on January 27, 1967. Astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed. Their deaths were on the mind of President Ronald Reagan in late January of 1986 when he had to deliver difficult news to the nation.</s>RONALD REAGAN: Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But we've never lost an astronaut in flight. We've never had a tragedy like this.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: That 1986 tragedy he was talking about was the space shuttle Challenger bursting into flames 73 seconds after takeoff. Seven astronauts were killed. After the Challenger explosion, NASA instituted a series of reforms to make the shuttle program safer.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: But on February 1, 2003, a new generation was reminded of the risks of spaceflight. The shuttle Columbia disintegrated as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere after a mission and another seven astronauts died. Here's then-President George W. Bush.</s>GEORGE W BUSH: The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth, yet we can pray that all are safely home.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Some of the voices from the history of the U.S. space program on this, NASA's Day of Remembrance.

Netflix's One Day at a Time is a reimagining of the TV classic. Rachel Martin talks with Justina Machado, who plays a newly single Latina mother raising her teenage kids with the help of her mom.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The show "One Day At A Time" first aired on CBS in the 1970s, and then it was a sitcom about a divorced mom raising her two teenagers alone. And it was considered, at the time, to be pretty edgy.</s>POLLY CUTTER: (Singing) This is it. This is it.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It was created by legendary TV producer Norman Lear. And like his other big hits of the time, it leaned into what many saw as uncomfortable realities. In that case, it was the growing number of single-parent families. Now "One Day At A Time" is back. Norman Lear is still executive producer. And the general outline is the same, although now the family is Cuban-American.</s>GLORIA ESTEFAN: (Singing) One day at a time. One day at a time.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: They've got a grandma living with them played exquisitely by Rita Moreno.</s>RITA MORENO: (As Lydia) I came out of the womb wearing stilettos. Even my footie pajamas had kitten heels.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And life is even more complicated. To talk about the third season of the show, which is out today on Netflix, I spoke with one of the stars, Justina Machado.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Your show has gotten so much praise over the last couple of seasons, in particular, for how it has taken on social and political issues. And in the very beginning of the second season, Penelope - your character - Penelope's son Alex comes home from school. He gets in trouble for punching a kid. And he says the reason that he punched the kid was because they were throwing all this racist language his way.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (As Penelope) Alex, we're going to figure this out. But you can't hit somebody every time they call you a name.</s>MARCEL RUIZ: (As Alex) I don't. It was just this time.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (As Penelope) What? This has happened before?</s>MARCEL RUIZ: (As Alex) Yeah.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (As Penelope) What do they say?</s>MARCEL RUIZ: (As Alex) You know, beaner, wet back, gangbanger, Pit Bull.</s>RITA MORENO: (As Lydia) Pit Bull is the only one that's even close to accurate.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (As Penelope) Does this happen at school?</s>MARCEL RUIZ: (As Alex) No, just a couple times when I'm out. Once, at a baseball game, the other team was leaving on their bus. And they saw me and yelled, build the wall.</s>ISABELLA GOMEZ: (As Elena) Oh, my God.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: That clip was - it was heartbreaking. It's always heartbreaking for anybody to go through something like that, especially a young, innocent child. So I really loved that we put that out there. And I love the outcome of it, you know? - like, what she said. They are the ones that have the issue. And we're going to deal with this through communication, with love and not let that change our narrative.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah. I want to talk a little bit about your character Penelope. She's such a cool lady.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Yes.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should just say she's a very cool lady. But I think back on a lot of other family sitcoms that I grew up with. And you didn't really see the vulnerability of parents, right?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Yeah.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Which is what is so appealing about her - is that, in part, what drew you to her and this role?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Well, it's interesting because when I first read for the role, they only gave me a little bit of the script. So I wasn't sure what the whole thing was going to be. But I know that what they gave me was this incredible monologue that was so layered, I thought, if the rest of the show was like this, this is going to be amazing.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: In reality, I was just drawn to it because it was Norman Lear (laughter).</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. That's a big enough draw. I mean, that's...</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: I was like, Norman Lear?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Whatever.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: OK, I want in on this.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Have you gotten to meet Norman Lear?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Oh, my God, girl. Norman Lear is there all the time.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is he really?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Are you kidding me?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: He's, like, on set on a regular basis.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: On a regular basis.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. So can you talk a little bit about how this fits into the Norman Lear pantheon? Your character in particular - she's not just a divorced, single mom, right? - like Bonnie Franklin was in the original...</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Right.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ..."One Day At A Time." She is the daughter of immigrants. And she's a veteran. She's - there's all kinds of layers here.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Yeah. And that veteran actually came from Norman because, you know, Norman's a veteran of World War II. So that was important. If anyone knows Norman Lear, they know that he just revolutionized television. He brought all that - you know, the sitcom. He brought topics that were of the day to his shows.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: So I think we are right there in the line of his legacy. And that's part of the reason I was so excited to even be considered for something like this because I was a fan of Archie Bunker, a fan of "Good Times" - you know, all of those.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And now you're in one. Isn't that cool?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm - oh, my - and I never in a million...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You're not just in one.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: ...Years...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You're the star.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: I - how about that?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: I mean, you know? And I didn't think that was going to happen anymore. I - because I'm not - I'm not necessarily an ingenue anymore. You know what I mean?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Rita Moreno.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Yes!.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean...</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (Laughter).</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You guys have great chemistry. Just tell me things about her.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Rita Moreno is pretty amazing. She does not hold her tongue (laughter). She's witty. She's funny as hell. Honestly, like, speaking to her is just like talking to one of my contemporaries. I mean, the tenacity and the energy and the love that she has for what she does and for life is intoxicating. And it's also like - you can't help but want to join in. Everything you can imagine is what she is.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Are there topics you would like to lean into on the show but you haven't figured out a way to do it yet? - something that's maybe provocative or uncomfortable.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: I mean, I wouldn't mind touching - and I think we touched on it a little bit - colorism in the world of Latinos.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: (As Penelope) All right, look. You and your brother are of different shades.</s>RITA MORENO: (As Lydia) Yes.</s>RITA MORENO: (As Lydia) Papito is a beautiful caramel.</s>RITA MORENO: (As Lydia) And you are Wonder Bread.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: There are Latinos that are prejudiced against the Afro-Latinos, against, like, Indio-Latinos. So many Afro-Latinos right now don't feel represented - and absolutely. I mean, if it's hard for us as a Latino with light skin, it's even harder for them because, like, what world do they fit in? Because so many people in the Hollywood world, they just think we look like one thing.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what are we going to see in Season 3? I mean, we've talked about how the show addresses uncomfortable social and political debates. Are we going to see more of that? Are we going to see Penelope exploring her own personal life in any kind of way?</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: We are. We're going to see - Penelope has a new love interest.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Oh, there we go. OK.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: So she's doing that. And, you know, she's dealing with stuff that's happening with her son. You know, there's teenage topics, drug use. It's just - it's a beautiful journey for Penelope. It's a beautiful journey of her just really taking care of herself, discovering herself, doing what's right for herself.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right, because this is a woman who has had to give everything for her family.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Right. And now she's taking care of herself a little bit more this season.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, we can't wait to see Season 3. Justina Machado is the star of "One Day At A Time." Thank you so much for talking with us.</s>JUSTINA MACHADO: Thank you, Rachel.

Sister Christine Schenk talks to David Greene about the significance of Pope Francis' acknowledgement of widespread sexual abuse of nuns perpetrated by Catholic clergy.

DAVID GREENE, HOST: This week, for the first time, Pope Francis is publicly acknowledging the widespread abuse of nuns by Catholic clergy. There have been some reports of nuns having abortions or giving birth to children fathered by priests or bishops. These allegations are not new. Reports about this kind of abuse were given to Vatican officials as far back as the 1990s. Now nuns around the world are speaking out. We have Sister Christine Schenk on the line with us. She's the co-founder of the group FutureChurch, which advocates for more involvement of laypeople in church leadership. Sister Christine, good morning. Thanks for taking the time.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Good morning. And thank you for having me.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Was this a significant acknowledgment by the pope?</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: I think it was. Historically, the hierarchical church tries to keep all of this quiet. But Francis is not one to be that way. He's been out of the box on internal, structural sin from the very beginning. And so I really welcomed his statement because any time you bring stuff that's shrouded in secrecy into the light, it's a step in the right direction.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: I wonder when you first learned about this happening within the church.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Actually, I was around in the 1990s when all of the women from Africa began reporting just horrific abuses. And at the time, we tried very hard to get more information and to do an advocacy thing on their behalf but because of the power dynamics, were very fearful of, you know, becoming more public and would not engage at that time. So, you know, we left it to the internal structures to work it out of their own religious orders. I was happy to learn that things had improved quite a bit in Africa.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: But they've improved mainly because the religious orders themselves have taken very big steps to educate their young sisters and to avoid being alone with clerics, to stop asking for letters of recommendation to enter religious orders from clerics, to stop clerics being spiritual directors. And so the incidents have gotten better. But it hasn't been because of the hierarchy. It's been because the sister leadership has taken care to protect their young sisters.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Are they going to do something? Like, are you confident that the pope is going to do something that would really make a difference here?</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: I think he's going to try. But until the church develops some kinds of structure of accountability for removing bishops who abuse sisters but who also abuse children, I'm afraid not a whole lot will happen. I mean, and so my whole...</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: This just goes on. And no one even realizes it.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Right, they don't. They don't think it's a big problem. And it's because people don't speak out because of - fearing retaliation. In some countries, the church is a persecuted minority. And they don't want to make it look bad in the larger public. I mean, there's a lot of complexity about the issue. My hope is the February 21 meeting, even though I don't expect a lot in the way of bishop accountability, could well be a consciousness-raising moment for the bishops - the Catholic bishops of the world, especially in the...</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: This is the pope meeting with bishops and priests in a couple of weeks to...</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Yeah.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: ...Actually address the issue of sex abuse around the globe. So this, in theory, would be a place where this would...</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Right.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: ...Come up if the pope was going to do something.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Exactly. And so in some ways, I'm really glad a lot of this is breaking now because it puts it on the table, as well as the horrific issues of child sex abuse.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: I just want to ask you. Is getting more laypeople in church leadership, as your group advocates - is that - could that make a difference here?</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: I think it would make a huge difference. And we've said for years if we had parents at the decision-making table, these, you know, abusive priests would've been out of there immediately. And so I think we - unfortunately, we're not close enough. But real, systemic change won't happen until we have all of the voices in the church at the decision-making table.</s>DAVID GREENE, HOST: Sister Christine Schenk, thank you so much.</s>CHRISTINE SCHENK: Thank you very much.

We watched the State of the Union address with a group of Republicans and Democrats at a restaurant and lounge in a small town in Iowa.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: How did the State of the Union speech look in Iowa? It's the state that votes first on Democratic presidential challengers, several of whom were in the House chamber for that speech last night. Iowa is also the state that would vote first if President Trump were to face a primary challenge. NPR national political correspondent Don Gonyea saw the speech from Denison, Iowa.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: I found a group watching the president on the flat-screen TV up in the corner of the lounge at Cronk's Cafe in Denison, a local eatery that's been here since 1929.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That we added another 304,000 jobs, last month alone, almost double the number expected.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: George Blazek is a 30-year-old attorney in town.</s>GEORGE BLAZEK: I thought he did very well.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Blazek is a Republican, but one who did not vote for Trump in 2016. He voted third party. There are still things about Trump he does not like, but he thinks there has been real progress, especially on the economy.</s>GEORGE BLAZEK: I did not vote for Trump in 2016, but if I had to do it over again, I might have voted for him.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: On the government shutdown, Blazek says he thinks Trump's proposals on the border wall and its costs were reasonable. He adds, though, that he'd like to see more of the Trump who spoke last night and less of the one firing off insulting tweets in all caps. The Democrats watching in Denison had a different take. Thirty-six-year-old Ken Kahl is in the real estate business and is continually offended by the way Trump talks about caravans heading north through Mexico to the U.S. border.</s>KEN KAHL: The same exclamations of, you know, the dangerous immigrants. And it's almost comical, you know, just the way they portray this danger.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: He heard a speech riddled with inaccuracies and exaggeration. Then there was the moment when the president spoke of what he called the economic miracle taking place in the U.S. It's all threatened, Trump said, by the investigations into him.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Ridiculous partisan investigations.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: That got a big laugh from the Democrats watching.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Laughter).</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Let's just throw that together. No.</s>DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Even the Republicans present chuckled. The speech lasted well past the restaurant's closing time, but the place stayed open until the president finished and the audience slowly exited into the single-digit temperatures outside. Don Gonyea, NPR News, Denison, Iowa.

President Trump will deliver his speech at the end of the longest partial government shutdown in history — a standoff many analysts believe ended in defeat for the president.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The television star who burnished his fame with the phrase you're fired tonight goes on TV to face several hundred people he cannot fire. In the State of the Union speech, President Trump faces an illustration of the difference between being a business executive and a president. He faces lawmakers who were elected on their own who constitute a coequal branch of government and aren't going anywhere. The very date of the speech is a demonstration. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will sit behind the president during the speech, delayed this event until the president ended a partial government shutdown. So what's the president have to say now? NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe is here. Good morning.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So what are you hearing at the White House about what the president plans to say?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: So this president is known for breaking traditions, but the White House is stressing that this State of the Union will be pretty traditional. Trump is going to deliver a unifying message, according to officials. And here's how Trump framed the speech when he was asked about this last week.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think it's unification. I think it's industry. I think it's about the people that you see right here. It's also working with these people 'cause they've been incredible. We have had some incredible rapport, and we've had incredible Republican support.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Who's he referring to there, Ayesha, when he talks about the people you see right here, working with these people?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: So I think those were just some government officials that he was talking to - kind of his administration. But I've been...</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Business group as well, I suppose. He's talking...</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yeah, business group. Yeah, business group.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: All right. Go on, go on.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yeah. And so there's going to be talking - talk of bridging old divisions and healing wounds. And this is supposed to be Trump kind of at his most optimistic. There will be a pitch for border security, and he will almost certainly advocate for a wall. But the White House is pointing to these areas where they think there can be agreement - infrastructure once again...</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: ...And also lowering health care costs.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, we'll see what happens there. Now, you mentioned the wall discussions. Some of the lawmakers, who we expect would be in the room tonight, are lawmakers who've been working on some kind of border security compromise. Republicans and Democrats have hinted or explicitly said that among themselves they could more or less agree on this, but the president doesn't expect them to give any money or enough money to satisfy him on his wall.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: And that's the whole issue. And the White House acknowledges that there are some real differences on a border security policy between the president and Democrats. And so you - and you also have this threat of President Trump declaring a national emergency that he's been hanging out. It's not expected that he would do that at the State of the Union, but the fact that he has this kind of in his back pocket and that he's been kind of teasing that he might do this will probably maybe undercut some of the ideas of unification that he's going to put forward tomorrow night because it's such a polarizing idea.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: It is a polarizing idea among Republicans. You can look at a quote from Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who's saying, the president should bypass Congress, bypass my own institution and declare a state of emergency. But you can also hear John Cornyn who is a Republican. And nobody would say he's not partisan, but he's saying, listen, there's a constitution; there's a Senate; there's a system, and it would be a bad idea to go for a state of emergency. It's not clear that Republicans are unified behind that idea.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: And they're not. They're not necessarily unified. And that's part of the issue - is that if he goes ahead with this, he may have some pushback from his own party. And so that's what he's going to have to figure out going forward. Is he willing to take that risk?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Ayesha, thanks very much as always.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Ayesha Rascoe.

The White House says the president will deliver a unifying message in his speech. Calls mount for Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam to resign. And Russia reacts to the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: President Trump will deliver the State of the Union tonight, but he will do it in Nancy Pelosi's House.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Or the People's House, as some lawmakers like to call it. The speaker of the House will convene the speech that she delayed during the partial government shutdown. President Trump is still demanding a border wall, the demand that drove that shutdown. And he addresses lawmakers with border security still unresolved and a deadline looming. Some of the lawmakers, who will be in the room tonight, are working on compromise. But the president has said he doubts that will work, and he's been talking of bypassing Congress by declaring a state of emergency.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe is with us this morning. Hey, Ayesha.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The White House typically gives a readout on what to expect from the State of the Union, themes they're going to focus on. What are you hearing?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: So while this president is known for breaking traditions, the White House is stressing that this State of the Union will be pretty traditional. Trump is going to deliver a unifying message according to officials. Here's how Trump framed the speech when he was asked about this last week.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think it's unification. I think it's industry. I think it's about the people that you see right here. It's also working with these people 'cause they've been incredible. We have had some incredible report, and we've had incredible Republican support.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Presumably, Ayesha, he was with some business leaders or something when he gave these remarks.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yes - yeah, giving these remarks. And so there's going to be talk of kind of bridging old divisions and healing wounds. And this is supposed to be Trump at his most optimistic and kind of presenting his vision for the future. But there will be a pitch for border security, and he's expected to advocate for a wall. But the White House says there are areas where they believe that Trump will be able to find some common ground with Democrats - for instance, spending on rebuilding U.S. infrastructure. And then there's Trump's push to lower health care costs and prescriptions. And they hope that's an area where there might be some compromise.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should just note we've been hearing about infrastructure and its bipartisan possibilities for at least two years.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Is this infrastructure week again this week?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: It's infrastructure week always, yes.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Always.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: As Steve mentioned, the president has made no secret about exploring the possibility of declaring a state of emergency to get the border wall funding. Any idea whether or not he's going to use the speech to again threaten that?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: The president has said stay tuned when it comes to this idea of declaring a national emergency. But the thought is that it's unlikely that he will do it tonight. Anything is possible, but that would likely overshadow this idea of unification...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right (laughter).</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: ...If you throw out such a polarizing idea.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: And - but what officials have said that Trump will try to do is point to areas where there has been agreement and compromise over the past two years. For instance, when it came to changing drug sentencing laws and promoting job training jobs - or job training programs to prisoners in this bill called the FIRST STEP Act, that was a bipartisan bill that - or law that passed last year. And you're going to have some of the beneficiaries of that bill...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: In the audience, yeah.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: ...Of that new law in the audience at the State of the Union.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You know, Ayesha mentioned some areas where there is conceivable compromise. But we should note, this president periodically has called for unity going all the way back to his primary campaign. From time to time, he's called for unity. But like many a politician, when he calls for unity, he typically ends up saying something like, everyone unify behind my position; come on. And so it's a hard thing to do.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. The Democrats get a chance to weigh in. What do we know about the Democratic response after the speech, Ayesha?</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who ran for governor of Georgia last year, will be giving the response. She didn't win that election, but she's viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe with a preview of the speech - thanks, Ayesha.</s>AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. We're going to pivot and talk about what is happening in the state of Virginia. And what is happening in the state of Virginia is a whole lot of political uncertainty.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah. Days ago, the discovery of an old racist photo in a yearbook of Governor Ralph Northam prompted people to ask - who's next in line to be governor? Well, it's Justin Fairfax, the lieutenant governor. But now people are checking just to be sure about who is third in line because Fairfax faces accusations of his own.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We are joined on the line from Richmond, Va., by Mallory Noe-Payne of member station WVTF. Mallory, thanks for being here.</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Explain the allegation against the lieutenant governor.</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: So a conservative blog, the same one that actually first published the photo of Northam, published an allegation of sexual assault against the lieutenant governor. So...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is from a few years back. Right?</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: It is. It's from before he was married. He was in his mid-20s. The accuser hasn't spoken publicly, so there's really not much that we know except for that he came out denying the allegation. He presides over the state Senate, so he was working as usual yesterday. And he stepped out of the Senate; reporters just surrounded him and gave him the chance to respond.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I think we've actually got tape of that. Let's listen to him.</s>JUSTIN FAIRFAX: Does anybody think it's any coincidence that on the eve of, potentially, my being elevated that that's when this uncorroborated smear comes out? Does anybody believe that's a coincidence?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So it sounds like he's blaming fellow Democrats here.</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: Well - so he's either blaming fellow Democrats, or he's blaming the conservative blog that chose to run this information now. The Washington Post actually said that this accuser approached them with a story about a year ago. They chose not to run the story because it was a "he said, she said" situation. They couldn't corroborate it in any way.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should clarify. He intimated further in that clip that it could be supporters of Governor Northam himself who don't like the idea of Fairfax taking over. Have we heard anything more from Governor Northam at this point?</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: No. Governor Northam's spokeswoman did come out and say that it was a hundred percent not true that these accusations somehow come back to Northam or his people at all. But it's been more than 36 hours since Northam's last public appearance or public statement of any kind. So we don't know what the governor is thinking at this point.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let's just play this out. Let us imagine a scenario where Northam - the pressure on him to resign is just too much. He feels he can't govern, so he leaves. And Fairfax - let's play this out...</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Hypothetically.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Hypothetically, is forced to step down. Who'd be third in line?</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: The attorney general - his name is Mark Herring. He's also a Democrat. He actually had already announced plans to run for governor in 2020, so he planned - or hoped, at least - to follow Northam. So who knows? He may get that job sooner than expected - not out of the realm of possibility.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh. So he's thinking of running in 2021, but now he has to be prepared. Who knows? Who knows?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right, lots of unanswered questions at this point. Mallory Noe-Payne from member station WVTF in Richmond. Mallory, thank you so much.</s>MALLORY NOE-PAYNE, BYLINE: You're welcome.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The clock is ticking on a 1987 arms control agreement that symbolized the end of the Cold War.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: It's called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Trump administration announced last week that the United States is dropping out. It's set to expire in the next six months. Now, in his announcement the other day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States has spent the past six years trying to get the Russians to follow the treaty.</s>MIKE POMPEO: We have raised Russia's noncompliance with Russian officials, including at the highest levels of government, more than 30 times. Yet Russia continues to deny that its missile system is noncompliant and violates the treaty.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So how is Russia responding?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's ask NPR's Lucian Kim in Moscow. Good morning, Lucian.</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we're clear on the U.S. position. But what has President Putin said about this?</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Well, President Putin says the U.S. was never interested in saving the INF Treaty and is using Russian noncompliance, which of course the Kremlin denies, as a pretext to end it. Putin said over the weekend that Russia's response will be symmetrical. That means Russia will also suspend its participation in the treaty and will reserve the right to develop weapons banned under it.</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: I think what's interesting here is that Putin made sure to emphasize that these new weapons won't require any extra spending. This is a very sensitive subject right now in Russia. It seems like Russians, right now, are more interested in butter than they are in guns. And Putin, of course, remembers very well that the Soviet Union basically went bankrupt trying to keep up with the U.S. arms spending during the Cold War.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So they insist that they're complying with this deal. I mean, do they have any evidence that they are?</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Russia insists that they are complying. A couple of weeks ago, they even presented the launch tube and launch vehicle of the missile in question. But American officials have dismissed this as a public relations stunt.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But you say that this will now allow Russia to expand their missile program, essentially, to be able to produce the kinds of weapons that were banned under the INF, which raises the question - is this the best way to contain Russia's ambitions, just allowing them to move forward?</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Yeah, that's right. I mean, the weapons banned under the INF Treaty are intermediate range, so that means U.S. missiles based in Europe and Russian missiles aimed at Europe. For the moment, NATO has said it's not interested in basing these kind of American missiles in Europe. And Russia says, for now, he won't deploy any new weapons until the U.S. does.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. So if we look forward here - if this treaty expires as it looks like that will be the outcome, there is only one major nuclear weapons treaty that will still bind the U.S. and Russia. This is the New START Treaty, which basically limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads. That is set to expire in two years. What's the health of that agreement right now?</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Well, from what we know, Russia is interested in extending this treaty. It was signed by President Obama and his then-counterpart Dmitry Medvedev sort of as a symbol of their reset in relations. As you said, this treaty seeks to reduce strategic weapons. Those are those long-range missiles that Russia has aimed at the U.S. and the U.S. has aimed at Russia. So far, the Russians say their attempts to start renewal negotiations have been ignored by the Trump administration.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. NPR's Lucian Kim reporting for us on Russia's reaction to the announcement by the Trump administration that they will suspend American participation in the INF Treaty.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Lucian, thanks. We appreciate it.</s>LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Thank you.

Commentator Cokie Roberts talks with NPR's Steve Inskeep and answers listener questions about the official response to the State of the Union address.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Stacey Abrams, who once ran for governor of Georgia, delivered the Democratic response to the State of the Union speech last night.</s>STACEY ABRAMS: Growing up, my family went back and forth between lower middle class and working class. Yet even when they came home weary and bone-tired, my parents found a way to show us all who we could be.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Let's talk about the tradition of the official response with commentator Cokie Roberts, who joins us each week to talk about how the government and politics work. Hi, Cokie.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK, here's a question from one of our listeners.</s>CHRISTINA GRIFFITH: Hi, this is Christina Griffith (ph). I live in Philadelphia. When was the first time Congress decided a response to the State of the Union was necessary? And was the choice of who would make that response always a meaningful gesture? Or did it just fall to party leadership?</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Well, the first response, in the way we've come to know it, came in 1966. The year before, Lyndon Johnson had moved the State of the Union from a daytime event into prime time for a bigger audience. And the Republicans realized what a boon it was, and so they demanded some time for a response. The two congressional leaders, Gerald Ford and Everett Dirksen, delivered it. And, yes, it is the leaders who decide, but they've decided all kinds of different approaches over the years.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Now, we have a question from Robert Lee Rouse Jr. (ph), who asks, don't these speeches kind of have a history of burning the person who gives them?</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: (Laughter) Well, the person who gives them often burns him or herself.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Do you remember in 2013 Marco Rubio grabbing for a bottle of water?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: He remembers - that's for sure.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: He does. In 2009, then Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sounded so much like Mister Rogers that he was ridiculed endlessly by late-night comedians. My personal favorite was 1985 when the Democrats put on a slick video where they conducted focus groups to answer Ronald Reagan. The voters spoke their minds.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: And we said that Reagan's program wouldn't work. And to the extent that individuals are better off, it has worked - at the price obviously of the deficit.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wait a minute. That's the Democratic response?</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: (Laughter) Yeah, that was the Democratic response - not exactly scathing criticisms of the president. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was the anchorman of that broadcast. And though it was weird, it didn't seem to hurt him.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Dalsey Brand (ph) writes with the opposite question. Has any of these speeches ever been a big success?</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Well, the whole setup is basically unfair. The president's in the historic hall of the House of Representatives. The responder's usually a guy standing alone in a room in front of a teleprompter. In 1995, the Republicans got away from that in their response to Clinton.</s>CHRISTINE WHITMAN: I'm Christine Whitman, governor of New Jersey. And I am addressing you tonight from the historic legislative chamber in Trenton - one of the oldest in the nation.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: That one scored on several fronts. It was out of Washington in a stately setting, with people there actually applauding - and Republicans putting forward a woman, which often works for them.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Now, here's another question.</s>MATTHEW DURDENY: My name is Matthew Durdeny (ph), and I'm from Boulder, Colo. Historically speaking, have regular citizens paid attention to the response? Or is it mostly for showboating in D.C.?</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Well, Steve, they get millions of viewers and listeners. So people are tuned in in much larger numbers than to a normal political speech. Of late, the polarization in our politics shows up in who watches what. So the last Trump State of the Union, more people watched the response than the speech on the liberal-leaning MSNBC. But for the speech itself, the conservative FOX channel had the highest rating.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Sure.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: And just a couple of weeks ago, that visually peculiar Pelosi-Schumer response to the wall speech garnered a slightly higher rating than the president himself.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. Thanks so much, Cokie - really appreciate it.</s>COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Always good to talk to you, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And we will have a response to that at another time. Commentator Cokie Roberts - and you can ask Cokie your questions about our politics and government work by tweeting us with the hashtag #AskCokie.

The two teams combined for 16 points, and the Patriots won. That's unlike last year when the teams combined for 74 points, and the Patriots lost. TV ratings were down to about 100 million viewers.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep. Many viewers called Sunday's Super Bowl dull. The two teams combined for only 16 points, and the Patriots won, as usual. That's unlike last year when the teams combined for 74 points, and the Patriots lost. And now we know this year's TV ratings are down to about 100 million viewers. But if you do the math and count it as TV viewers per point scored, this year's game was a big success. It's MORNING EDITION.

The partial government shutdown is over, for now, but its effects are still felt at Point Reyes National Seashore. The workers furloughed included those who would have kept elephant seals away.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning, I'm Steve Inskeep. The partial government shutdown is over for now, but its effects are still felt at Point Reyes National Seashore. Federal workers furloughed included those who would have kept the elephant seals away from a popular beach there. The giant seals overran the California beach. And now that they have it, the feds will let them stay awhile. The LA Times published a picture of a male elephant seal mating with a female, amid orange traffic cones in the parking lot.

Steve Inskeep talks to Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is unveiling her signature policy proposal, the Green New Deal.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is among the most famous members of Congress. And for now, among the less-influential, a freshman in a house where seniority counts. Her status is reflected in her new office, down a distant corridor of an office building on Capitol Hill.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I picked the office that was arguably the furthest walk from the Capitol.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Which allowed her staff a bit more space. So you're, like, effectively living in the suburbs to get a bigger house?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Exactly. That's exactly the choice I made. (Laughter).</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: We met Ocasio-Cortez inside that office. Sunlight fell through the oversized window onto her fuchsia suit. Her office is still a fraction of the size of the committee chairmen who hold real power in Congress, though she has something they do not. The 29-year-old is a media star. She has been since she upset a leading Democrat in a New York City primary last year. Her surprise victory cast her as a party insurgent. Her label as a Democratic Socialist also alarmed conservatives, who now see her face constantly on Fox News.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Today, she tries to leverage her fame. She joins dozens of other lawmakers proposing an environmental and economic plan, called the Green New Deal.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, to our country and to the world.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You can find the Green New Deal resolution on our website today. NPR is the first to publish this call to transform the economy. It's a resolution calling for massive increases in renewable energy production, like wind and solar. It would have the United States set a goal to become carbon neutral in 10 years, which is a very ambitious timeline. This resolution says what should be done but offers few specifics on how to do it. That would have to come in later legislation. Instead, the congresswoman aims to promote big goals.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Why, in this resolution, do you make a point of saying the United States bears disproportionate responsibility for the problem?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Because I think we do. And if we want the United States to continue to be a global leader then that means we have to lead on the solution of this issue. And I think that it is completely wrong to point fingers at other developing nations and to say, well, China's doing this and India's doing that and Russia is doing this, when we can just choose to lead and we don't have to hold ourselves to a lower bar.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You're talking about things that obviously would cost a lot of money. I know you'd rather think of it as an investment rather than a cost, but it is just certainly a lot of money. You don't specify where it's going to come from, other than saying it will all pay for itself.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. I think the first thing that we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for a hundred percent of government expenditure. It's just not how government expenditure works. We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut, which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure. But government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments - you know, bonds and so on.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, I get that. But deficit spending is borrowing money that has to be paid back eventually through taxes.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. And I think it - I think that is always the crux of it. So when we decide to go into the realm of deficit spending, we have to do so responsibly. We ask, is this an investment or is this actually going to pay for itself?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So you're saying borrow the money, make the investment. The economy will grow. It will pay off the debt.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Absolutely. Because we're creating jobs.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Although, I do have to say, you mentioned the Republican tax cut. They said the same thing about the tax cut - let's do this tax cut. The economy will grow. It's going to be great. It's going to pay for itself. Hasn't turned out to be true at all.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Absolutely. And I think that that is an important distinction to make because when they were advancing that cause, they had no evidence to say that these things were going to happen. But we actually do have the evidence. For every $1 invested in infrastructure, we get $6 back.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: As you know, Congresswoman, one reason that people who are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention, which they just don't like. Are you prepared to put on the table that, yes, actually, they're right, what this requires is massive government intervention?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: It does. It does. Yeah. I have no problem saying that. Why? Because we have tried their approach for 40 years. For 40 years, we tried to let the private sector take care of it. They said, we got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate. Except for the fact that there's a little thing in economics called externalities, and what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river and they don't have to pay for it, and taxpayers have to pay for cleaning up our air, cleaning up our water and saving the planet.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: And so we've already been paying the costs, except we have not been getting any of the benefit. And so what we're here to say is that government is not just for cleaning up other people's mess, but it's also for building solutions in places where the private sector will not.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So if you get this resolution passed, of course, it's a framework, it's an idea, it's a proposal and then you would need specific legislation to encourage wind power, to encourage solar, to do any number of things - efficiency, on and on. Those proposals, just mechanically, would need to move through various House committees, like the Energy and Commerce Committee, on its way to becoming law, committees that are chaired by Democrats who you have questioned or criticized because they take, for example, energy money. Frank Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee comes to mind. Do you have confidence in your fellow, more senior, Democrats that they would move the legislation that is necessary to do what you think needs to be done?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think this is where our style and where our organizing comes in, when everyday people begin to organize, when they make their presence known and their opinions known to their officials. It's the same way that we were able to save the ACA in a Republican majority. It's the same way that we're able to overcome some of those challenges of private industry and the role of money in politics.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Are you saying you kind of don't trust some of your fellow Democrats, but they'll need to be publicly pressured?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think that - well, I don't think trust is the right word for it. But I do think that when there's a wide spectrum of debate on an issue, that is where the public plays a role. And I do have trust is in my colleagues' capacity to change and evolve and be adaptable and listen to their constituents.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Do you feel that you know how to take the great fame that you have won over the last several months and turn that fame into power?</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: No. (Laughter). I think that a part of where I am right now is that I'm learning. I think that really what I hope we're able to do as a party and as a nation is rediscover the power of public imagination. I think that this is a very special moment. And, frankly, that is something that I think the president did do, in that he was able to take his profile and say, here's this hugely impossible thing that seems ridiculous, but I'm going to seriously push for it. And for him, that's his wall. And obviously, I'm diametrically opposed to it. But I think that the reason he's so attached to this thing, despite the fact that it's not what voters want, despite the fact that it's not what the American people want, is that it's the only vision he has. He has no other picture of America, except an America with a huge wall on the Southern border.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: And I think that what we have a responsibility to do is show what another America looks like. OK. Let's take all of that political energy, all of that resource that would go into building a massive second medieval wall on our Southern border. And what if we actually took all that concrete and poured it into roads? What if we took all of that engineering and dedicated it to new energy? What if we took all of that but actually invested in something that will have payback and a return on our investment for the American people?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Congresswoman, thanks so much.</s>ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Of course. Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat representing the Bronx and Queens, was in her office across the street from the Capitol here in Washington.

Alphabet, parent company of Google, reported strong revenue in the last quarter — mostly from advertising. Analysts weren't totally satisfied with the results. They say the company is spending more.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Alphabet, the parent company of Google, reported more than $30 billion in revenue last quarter that beat Wall Street expectations. Like Facebook, Google is making a lot of money, regardless of criticism over its privacy policies and its role as a conduit for false information. NPR's Laura Sydell reports.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: It's hard to avoid Google if you're looking for anything on the Web. It's a hub for advertisers to reach consumers. Well, revenue for the holiday quarter was up 22 percent over last year for Alphabet, its parent company, and most of that money came from ads. But Google has also been in the crosshairs of consumer and legislative anger over fake news and privacy breaches. In October and December, Google announced that the user data of millions of people had been exposed. In December, Google CEO Sundar Pichai was grilled by Congress on these issues. Last month, Google was fined some $57 million in France for violations of European privacy laws. During the earnings call yesterday, Pichai stressed Google's growing commitment to user protection.</s>SUNDAR PICHAI: We feel a deep sense of responsibility to do the right thing and are continuing to build privacy and security into the core of our products, keeping users' data safe and secure with the industry's best security systems, and giving people better and clearer controls.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Pichai promised that new features would be rolled out in the coming year to safeguard data, though he didn't offer any details. But analysts weren't totally satisfied with Alphabet's results. The company is spending more. One area in particular is cloud computing. It's been trailing both Amazon and Microsoft, and now it's spending to catch up. Still, in many ways, Alphabet is a bellwether company for the health of the tech industry. Its largely positive results indicate that angry lawmakers and users haven't hurt the bottom line. Laura Sydell, NPR News.

Pope Francis, for the first time, acknowledged the sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops.

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Pope Francis has acknowledged that the sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops is a longstanding problem and that it still happens. The pope made these remarks during a press conference on his plane as he was flying back to Rome from the United Arab Emirates. And NPR's Sylvia Poggioli has more.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: For years, cases of abuse of women in the church have long been known. The problem persists particularly in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Italy. And yet church authorities have rarely addressed the issue publicly. But in the wake of the #MeToo movement, a #NunsToo movement has emerged, and the issue has been more widely reported. Last week, even the women's magazine of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reported on nuns having abortions or giving birth to children fathered by priests or bishops. Asked about that by a reporter, for the first time, the pope acknowledged what has long been an open secret.</s>POPE FRANCIS: (Through interpreter) There are priests and even bishops who have done that. And I believe it still happens because something doesn't stop just because you have become aware of it.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Just last month, a top official in the Vatican doctrinal office that handles allegations of clerical sex abuse resigned after a former nun accused him of making sexual advances during confession. And Francis acknowledged Tuesday that some priests have been suspended because of such abuse of women in the church.</s>POPE FRANCIS: (Through interpreter) Should something more be done? Yes. Is there the will? Yes. But it is a path that we already began.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Francis pointed to his predecessor, whom he called a strong man.</s>POPE FRANCIS: (Through interpreter) Pope Benedict had the courage to shut down a women's religious order because nuns had been reduced to slaves - even sex slaves by priests.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: He did not name the order, but a Vatican spokesman said it was the French order Contemplative Sisters of Saint-Jean. Francis stressed that abuse of women is a persistent problem for society at large.</s>POPE FRANCIS: (Through interpreter) I dare say that humanity has not yet matured. Women are treated as second class. It is a cultural problem. There are even countries where mistreatment of women reaches the point of femicide.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Last November, the International Union of Superiors General, the organization that represents the world's female Catholic religious orders, urged sisters to report abuse - publicly denouncing the culture of silence and secrecy that prevented nuns from speaking out. In the article last week in the magazine Women Church World, the editor, Catholic feminist Lucetta Scaraffia, pinned blame for the abuse of women in the church on the culture of clericalism that dominates in the Catholic Church - the same power dynamic that is seen as the main culprit for the continuing revelations of clerical sex abuse of minors around the globe. Sylvia Poggioli, NPR News, Rome.

From insurance fees and property damages, to a productivity pause on businesses, weather affects the U.S. business sector in many ways.

DAVID GREENE, HOST: It was really cold in much of the country last week, like, really cold. Thief River Falls, Minn., recorded -77 Fahrenheit one night. But how can you measure the costs of extreme weather? Stacey Vanek Smith and Cardiff Garcia from Planet Money's The Indicator podcast tell us what happens to the economy when it rains or hails or gets really cold outside.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and New Hampshire all saw temperatures in the negative double digits last week.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: The culprit - the infamous polar vortex. Basically, a weather system that is usually above the North Pole came here to visit us in the U.S.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Andreas Prein is a research scientist at the Center for Atmospheric Research. He studies extreme weather for a living. And he looks at the different impacts that the weather can have.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: What is the economic effect of extreme weather?</s>ANDREAS PREIN: It's really big.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: He says climate change is causing more intense, big storms, like hurricanes.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And these storms are more expensive than they used to be both because they're more intense and also because there are more people moving to areas that are affected by extreme weather - places like New York and Florida.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: The biggest economic effect in the U.S. is coming from hurricanes. So, for example, if you talk to insurance industry, they're most concerned about Atlantic hurricanes when they hit the East Coast.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Andreas says that 17 of the 20 most expensive and damaging cyclones that we've had have occurred in the last 20 years. He says that Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey and Maria all caused between roughly $70 billion and $125 billion each in damages. That was in destroyed property, flood damage, businesses being suspended or even permanently closed in some cases. He says hurricanes have emerged as the most economically destructive form of extreme weather in the U.S.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: The second is really heatwaves and droughts. And, of course, it's also the deadliest of natural disasters, I have to say.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Andreas says the drought cost nearly $3 billion in lost employment on farms, insurance claims and lost agricultural productivity. The next one on the list...</s>ANDREAS PREIN: Floods, I would say.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: He says extreme rainfall in the Northeast has increased by about 70 percent in the last 70 years. Also, Andreas says, commercial insurance generally does not cover flooding. So those costs can fall to homeowners and business owners.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Which brings us to the fourth most economically damaging extreme weather event.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: I would say severe convective storms.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Convective - like with a V.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: With a V, yeah.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Convective, OK.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: The interesting thing about severe convective storms is that they can cause tornado or large hail or very strong winds.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Andreas says convective storms and the tornadoes and hail they bring with them cause more than $11 billion in damage every year.</s>ANDREAS PREIN: And that brings us to the fifth and final kind of extreme weather. Last, and, I guess, in this case, least - but it doesn't feel like that at the moment.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Especially not with windchill.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: No - cold weather. Andreas says that cold weather has a different kind of economic cost than storms. There's less property damage, but the cold is kind of like hitting an economic pause button.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: One estimate put the economic impact of the polar vortex at about $5 billion. And Andreas says as we see more and more extreme weather events, it will start to be a bigger drag on the economy and on taxpayers. That's everything from insurance losses to property damage to business disruption. Stacey Vanek Smith.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Cardiff Garcia, NPR News.

The new NPR history podcast Throughline traces the bitterness between Iran and the U.S. back to a 1953 CIA plot to overthrow Iran's rightfully elected leader.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Next, we have the story behind some of the latest news. The United States confrontation with Iran is the latest chapter in a 40-year-old story - 40 years old this year. February is the anniversary of the 1979 revolution when an Islamist, anti-American government took power. But, really, the story is even older than that because that anti-Americanism in Iran goes back to an event in 1953, which we're about to discuss with the hosts of NPR's new history podcast. It's called Throughline. And the hosts are Ramtin Arablouei - welcome.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And Rund Abdelfatah, good morning to you.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Thanks, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. So what was happening in Iran in 1953?</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Well, up until 1953, the U.S. and Iran didn't have much of a relationship. But then there was the issue of oil, specifically Great Britain's interest in Iran in terms of oil. Steve, for a very long time, for decades, Great Britain controlled most of Iran's oil resources. British Petroleum - BP - they were originally called the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: And the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had a deal with the Iranian government around oil that really favored British interests. Iran didn't take much money away from the oil revenues. Anyway, there was an Iranian politician named Mohammed Mossadegh, who had been railing against this deal for a very long time. Eventually, he was able to convince the Iranian parliament to nationalize their oil industry. And then he became prime minister. And then he shut down the British embassy because he was afraid that they were going to use the embassy to stage some kind of...</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Sure.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: ...Coup against his government.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: The British lost their foothold there. And so they saw it as a real threat. They sought help from their closest ally.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Their big brother, their big friend...</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: ...Across the Atlantic - the United States.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Yeah, the United States. Right.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What did the Americans do?</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Because they were their closest ally and because this is all happening during the Cold War and Iran happened to share a border with the Soviet Union, they eventually agreed.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And one of the greatest names in American history gets involved in the story at this point, right?</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: That's right. Kermit Roosevelt, related to FDR...</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: From the famous...</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Teddy, yeah (laughter).</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: ...Family, yeah.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Yeah, exactly. He was a CIA agent who was tasked with going to Iran and overthrowing the Mossadegh government and reinstating the shah or Iran's king.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Who had been kind of shoved away from power at that moment - right?</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Exactly.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: They wanted to, basically, consolidate power in his hands because he was friendly to the west. So we spoke to Stephen Kinzer, an author who wrote a definitive book on this topic called "All The Shah's Men." Like, how exactly do you overthrow a government? So he took us through it step by step.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Step one...</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Seize control of the Iranian press.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Basically, buy them off with bribes.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Turned out that the press was quite corrupt.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Step two - recruit allies on the ground - most importantly, the Islamic clergy or mullahs.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Kermit Roosevelt made strategic payments to a number of important mullahs in exchange for them delivering sermons denouncing Mossadegh from the pulpit as against God and irreligious.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Step three - get Iran's king, the shah, onboard. Roosevelt took matters into his own hands and began meeting with the shah almost every day - at midnight, in a taxicab - always in a different location. Roosevelt managed to convince the shah that Mossadegh was a threat. And so the shah agreed to the coup.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: And finally, step four - go to Mossadegh's house in the middle of the night, arrest him and put a puppet ruler in his place.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: But this whole first attempt fails. Roosevelt's bosses back in Washington tell him he can come home. Instead, Roosevelt doubles down and decides to try again - this time, taking it to a whole new level.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Attention is focused once again on the Middle East, where events in Iran have taken a dramatic double twist.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: On August 19, it began.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Roosevelt set out to make the Mossadegh government look like it was losing control of the country.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Three-hundred killed and hundreds wounded is a conservative estimate.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: And his plan was this. First of all, hire gangs of Iranians through people who controlled criminal protection rackets. And pay them to go out on the street and cause chaos.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: So Roosevelt actually paid criminals and gang members to storm into the city.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Beat up people in the streets.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Break shop windows.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Shoot your guns into mosques.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: And then...</s>STEPHEN KINZER: He hired a second mob to attack the first mob.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Which led to bloody, violent clashes between the two mobs.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: And the really trippy thing was that everybody involved...</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Everybody involved in the battles was being paid to be there. But what they didn't know was they were being paid by the same source.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: The CIA - and it worked. Mossadegh looked weak.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Mossadegh refused to send the police out because he said, well, they're peaceful demonstrators. People should be allowed to say what they want. He truly was too naive to grasp what was happening.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: And this brings us to the final part of Roosevelt's plan - to get rid of Mossadegh once and for all. Roosevelt ordered both mobs to head to Mossadegh's house.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Then who should show up but several police and military commanders, including a couple with tanks, people who Kermit Roosevelt had bribed to participate.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Those officers began opening fire on Mossadegh's house, while inside, Mossadegh and a few of his closest advisers huddled together.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: Tells them, I want to die here in the house.</s>STEPHEN KINZER: But somehow, they managed to drag him out a back window. They got him over a fence. He fled. The house was looted.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: And one of Roosevelt's paid generals goes on the radio and announces that the shah is returning to power.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: (Foreign language spoken).</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: And just like that, with a couple of chess moves, Kermit Roosevelt's plan ushered Iran into a new era.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Which would last for another 25 years until the 1979 revolution.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So now we're beginning this 40 years of conflict with the United States. How has this history you found influenced those 40 years?</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Well, for Americans, probably not that much because this was a secret coup. And the CIA didn't admit to it until 2013.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: It's only gradually become better known here.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Right, right.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Exactly. But for many Iranians, they understood that something had happened. And many of the intellectuals, actually, had a real - lot of knowledge about this. So for them, the coup was, basically, the original sin of the U.S.-Iran relationship.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Yeah. And, in fact, during the 1979 revolution, a lot of the students in the political class actually invoked the 1953 coup. This gap and how the two countries remember or don't remember their shared history, it continues to play out to this day.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: A way the present is influenced by the past.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Exactly.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Rund Abdelfatah, thanks for coming by.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Thanks so much, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: She is with Ramtin Arablouei. And they are the hosts of NPR's new history podcast Throughline. Thanks to you.</s>RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: Thanks, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And the first episode of the podcast Throughline is out today.

Virginia's governor is under fire for a racist photo. Jury deliberations get underway for drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. And Pope Francis is on a historic trip to the Arabian Peninsula.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: When he refused to resign over a racist photo, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam allowed one caveat.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Northam said, if he finds that he can't govern as a result of this controversy, he will have to reassess. The governor has had several dramatic days. He was criticized for remarks about abortion then engulfed by the story of a racist photo under his name in a medical school yearbook. First, Northam apologized. But then, he said the photo wasn't him. Former allies say it's basically just too late. The previous governor, Terry McAuliffe, spoke yesterday to NPR's Michel Martin.</s>TERRY MCAULIFFE: This is now about Virginia, who we are as Virginians and most importantly - how do we move forward? And he's just put himself in a position that he no longer can have that moral authority, nor can he lead the legislature and - to move our state forward.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So can he govern? McAuliffe's answer is no. Northam, of course, gets to decide for now. NPR's Sarah McCammon has been covering this story. She's in Richmond, Va. Sarah, good morning.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You were at this press conference Saturday where the governor was thought to be planning to resign, then he said he would not. How did he explain himself?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Right, Steve. It was a - I have to say, it was like a press conference I've never seen before, and I've been to a lot of political press conferences.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: There was speculation throughout the day about whether he might resign, but word came a little bit beforehand that he didn't plan to. And he walked back his initial story. I mean, within 24 hours or so of saying, yes, I was in this photo, and I'm sorry for it, he said, I actually don't believe I was in the photo. On further reflection, after conversations with family and classmates, I don't think that was me.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: But then, Steve, he said - and I remember this; I know I would remember this - because he said he remembers another incident with regret in which he appeared in blackface for a Michael Jackson costume. This was around the same time. He said he was at a dance competition. And he said he remembers that with regret, so he's sure that he's not in the photo. And he doesn't plan to resign.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: But so many questions, Sarah. OK. So it's conceivable it's not him in the photo. It's somebody in blackface. It's somebody in a Klan outfit, could be anybody there - except there was a moment when he seemed to remember it was him and admitted it. Did he explain that moment of admitting it?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Well, he said he felt a lot of pressure, a lot of responsibility to respond quickly when this news first emerged on Friday. It emerged on a blog, and it was quickly confirmed by a lot of media, including NPR. And he said there was just so much hurt and shock surrounding it. He said he felt shock as well, but he felt he had to take responsibility and apologize. And he said, I was presented with the evidence. It was my yearbook page, for sure. I thought it must be me. And it was even really unclear during the press conference what his state of mind was at that time. But he did indeed apologize for it and take responsibility initially.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And we'll note that in his second version of the story, he says he'd never seen that yearbook photo in all the years since 1984. Now he says he'll stay unless he finds he can't govern, then he has to reassess. What are the factors that determine if he can govern?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Well, he's lost the support of pretty much everyone that matters in the Democratic Party, both here in Virginia and nationally. And remember, Steve, Richmond is the capital of Virginia, and there is business to get done here, not just politics. This is a really big week in the legislature, a lot of key deadlines right now. And Democrats are concerned about how to, you know, advance their agenda. They made a lot of gains in 2017. This is an election year for the Virginia legislature. They hope - Democrats hope to make more gains.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: And of course, heading into 2020, this doesn't look good for Democrats here or for the party. So there's a lot of concern both about how Northam can govern and what it says about Democrats here and nationally that he remains in office.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Very briefly - I guess you've been talking with voters also, right?</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: I've been talking with voters, and I hear really the same concerns. That - I've heard a lot of people who supported him say, I can forgive him as a person, but he just is not in a position to continue being a leader here.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Sarah, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.</s>SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Sarah McCammon.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: All right. After an 11-week trial, jury deliberations begin today for one of the world's most notorious drug traffickers.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: His name is Joaquin Guzman. He is known widely as El Chapo, and he is the leader of the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel. Guzman faces 10 charges, including leading a criminal enterprise and importing and selling large amounts of narcotics here in the U.S. If the jury convicts him, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Quil Lawrence watched the closing arguments of this trial, and he's on the line. Quil, good morning.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: How straightforward is this case?</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Well, I mean, if you just took all of the evidence that the prosecution presented and put it on a scale next to what the defense presented, it's pretty lopsided. The prosecution had 37 days' worth of witnesses. They had a dozen boxes of evidence that they brought into the courtroom last week during closing arguments, including AK-47s and cans of La Comadre chilies, these cans that Chapo Guzman allegedly used in a canning factory that he would fill with cocaine and ship to the U.S. The defense called just one witness and lasted 30 minutes.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. This is fascinating, first because, you know, cans full of chilies. So they're being shipped through legal border crossings to the United States, and they get here. Second, when you're - you're telling me that if his guilt or innocence were judged by weight, I mean, that statue of blind justice would fall over on one side because the prosecution gave so much evidence.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Right, yeah. And I mean, it was - you talk about the cans being shipped in the United States. The ingenuity that was presented over 11 weeks of testimony of creating this multibillion-dollar, multinational corporation, allegedly, using trains and tunnels and ships and planes and submarines full of cocaine and cash - there were wiretaps. So El Chapo was allegedly obsessed with security, and he would tape all these calls. He even had an IT specialist set up a special network for him.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Unfortunately, that IT specialist turned state witness. And so the jury heard all of these tapes in the courtroom. And the prosecutor was able to say, well, you heard it from this cooperating witness. You also heard El Chapo, in his own words, say, you know, I'm sending 20 kilos of heroin to you in Chicago, etc.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. OK, so sounds pretty bad. We should note, also, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that El Chapo is or was a drug lord. He was a celebrity in Mexico. Many of these things were virtually happening in the open. And yet, when you go into court, there is the question - did the prosecution actually charge the specific violations of law beyond a reasonable doubt? So what is the defense here for El Chapo?</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Right. I mean, this guy is notorious. And he's on Netflix already, so the jury is supposed to have a blank slate. But he's already sort of infamous for having escaped prisons in Mexico. And the defense attorney really just spent his closing arguments maligning the character of all the cooperating witnesses, which was not hard to do. Some of them are credited with over a hundred murders. But he never really said that El Chapo Guzman is innocent, and he barely really tried to humanize him. It was an elaborate explanation that he isn't the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, that's someone else - Mayo Zambada. But again, it seemed rather lopsided.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Well, we will wait for your reporting on the verdict. Quil, thanks so much.</s>QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: OK. Thanks, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Quil Lawrence.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And now let's talk about the United Arab Emirates, where Pope Francis is visiting.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Not just visiting, making history because it's the first time ever that a pontiff has visited the Arabian Peninsula, which is the birthplace of Islam. It is also, though - the UAE, in particular - home to a million Catholics. Many of them are migrant workers from other countries. The pope is going to use his trip to talk about the need for more interfaith dialogue.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Sylvia Poggioli is traveling with the pope and joins us now from Abu Dhabi in the UAE. Hi, Sylvia</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Why would the pope make this moment the time to visit the Arabian Peninsula?</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, he's been invited to a big interreligious event taking place later today. It's part of an initiative aimed at promoting a moderate Islam and to counter religious fanaticism. For Francis, it's another milestone in Catholic-Muslim dialogue that he's been nurturing after the freeze in relations that was triggered by a controversial speech his predecessor, Benedict XVI, made in 2006 that contained a quote that linked Islam with violence.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The man behind today's initiative is Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. It's the most important center of learning of Sunni Islam. And he and the pope have met several times, and they've established a very good relationship.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. So it's an opportunity for the pope to reach out to Muslims but also speak directly to those 1 million Catholics we just mentioned.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Absolutely. Tomorrow he is going to celebrate a mass in a large stadium. There are about 135,000 people who are expected, and some people here are already describing it as the biggest public display of Christian worship in the Islamic heartland because, although the UAE prides itself to be a haven of tolerance, Islam is the official religion, and freedom of worship in other religions have many - there's a lot of restrictions.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Francis may challenge his host to grant full religious freedom and also better protection for noncitizens. This is a country that's also been sharply criticized for its human rights record. Keep in mind that out of a population of 9 million, only 1 million are Emiratis. The rest are all foreigners working in this oil-rich federation.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, let me raise another awkward issue if I can, Sylvia. Many people have paid attention to the war in Yemen, sometimes called the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. There's a Saudi-led intervention there. And the Saudi coalition includes the United Arab Emirates. UAE warplanes have flown over Yemen dropping bombs. Is the pope likely to bring up that?</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, very possibly. In fact, even just before his departure yesterday in Rome, in his Sunday message from St. Peter's Square, he made some of his most forceful comments to date on the Yemen crisis. He urged all sides to implement the fragile peace deal that was reached in December and to help deliver aid to millions of people who are suffering. He spoke about the children, in particular. His words here in UAE were welcomed by the foreign minister, who said in a tweet, let's make 2019 the year of peace. So it's very possible that the pope will raise his concerns about Yemen here again today.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Sylvia, thanks so much for the reporting. Really appreciate it.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Thank you, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Sylvia Poggioli is traveling with the pope in Abu Dhabi.

Hilgermissen was formed from several old villages, and no street has a name. A home address is a number, plus the name of the old village. As the town grows, officials would like to change that.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep. A town in Germany voted against progress. Voters do not want their streets named. Hilgermissen was formed from several old villages, and no street has a name. Your home address is just a number plus the name of your old village. Authorities want to change that as the city grows, but the measure to name streets was defeated 60 to 40 percent. If there were more voters in favor, they apparently didn't know the address of the polling place. It's MORNING EDITION.

Steve Inskeep talks to historian Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin American studies professor at Pomona College in California, about the broader context of the political crisis developing in Venezuela.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro insists he's not going anywhere. He remains in place even though European nations have recognized an opposition leader as president and protesters flooded the streets over the weekend.</s>UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: (Chanting) Si, se puede. Si, se puede.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Si, se puede, they're saying - "yes, it's possible" or "yes, we can." But Maduro supporters were marching, too, marking the 20th anniversary of Venezuela's socialist government. That government's rise to power is the backdrop for this moment. It came to power with a 1999 election of Maduro's populist predecessor Hugo Chavez. A specialist on Latin America, Miguel Tinker Salas of Pomona College, followed Chavez's career.</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: For the first time, you had a leader in Venezuela that looked like the mixed-race population, that spoke like them, acted like them. And he was able to utilize much of that to, again, promote social programs and to be re-elected on multiple occasions.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So this populist guy, Hugo Chavez, tries a coup, fails - but ends up winning an election, taking power - huge media figure, on television all the time, dominating everybody's lives and says he's going to change everything. How did he change things in the last years of his life?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: The first was political reform, the constitution of 1999, which is today being promoted by the opposition, which at that time they opposed. Then there was a coup in 2002. He came back. And then we had dramatic investment in social programs - health care, education, housing. But that could only happen as long as oil prices were exceedingly high. And eventually, as prices declined, there would be a reckoning. And that reckoning has happened.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: At what point did it become apparent that, amid all of this spending, that the oil money was starting to run out.</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: As the prices after 2014, 2015 begin to decline, Chavez has died. You begin to have shortages of basic food products, long lines. You have the U.S. sanctions, mismanagement, corruption. There are several factors.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And I guess it was in this period that Chavez's party began losing elections, that his successor, Nicolas Maduro, his party tried to keep control of the legislature and totally lost. Right?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Correct. It's the very first electoral victory the opposition scores in the National Assembly.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So they won the legislative elections, but then Maduro's government completely disempowered the legislature. Right?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Right. Maduro increasingly relies on what he will call the National Constituent Assembly (ph), which is this clause in the constitution which he activated to create a alternative body.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So wait a minute. Maduro is clearly losing power from 2015 onward. And instead of just fighting it out in elections, he ends up taking all the power away from the National Assembly, winning re-election with deeply disputed methods. How much popularity, though, does the president still seem to have, if any?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: According to some polls - even opposition polls - anywhere from 25 to 30 percent, even with the current crisis. And the opposition to Maduro is not just from the right. There are people protesting against Maduro that are protesting because he has not fulfilled the promises he made to the popular sectors. The opposition, they are united in ousting Maduro. It's not clear that they are united on what comes next.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The opposition leader Juan Guaido has said he's president under this provision that says that the legislative leader becomes interim president if there's a vacancy of the presidency. But isn't he limited to holding that office for 30 days until he can figure out an election?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Yes. And this is where it becomes kind of problematic because the constitution says 30 days. I'm hearing already from opposition sources saying that maybe they need a year to cleanse the political process. That would lead to more chaos. And that's the fear of playing to the military. What happens if you do find a faction in the military and we do wind up with an open military conflict? The consequences would be disastrous for the country.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Is the opposition movement discredited at all because it has such overt support from the United States?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: For an important segment of Venezuelan society, it is. The fact that you have Donald Trump, whose actions in terms of Latin America vis-a-vis the border, immigrant families, the separation of children. And then you have John Bolton and statements about the oil company. That baggage is part of what Guaido now carries.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Even with that said, does it seem to you that the opposition is legitimate on some level, that they represent the broad majority of society?</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: I think the opposition is a legitimate force in Venezuela. I think that they not always have been Democratic. We have to go back, understand that in 2002, they supported a coup. The reality is that unless there is a negotiated solution, unless the parties can come together, it puts us back at square one tomorrow.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Miguel Tinker Salas, thanks very much.</s>MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Thank you very much.

Pope Francis is the first pontiff to visit the Arabian peninsula after arriving in the United Arab Emirates. He's taking part in an interfaith conference and he'll celebrate mass.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Pope Francis is making history this week. He is on a landmark visit to the United Arab Emirates. It's the first-ever visit by a pontiff to the Arabian Peninsula. He's going to take part in an interfaith conference, and tomorrow he will hold Mass. NPR's Sylvia Poggioli is traveling with the pope and joins us on the line from Abu Dhabi. Good morning, Sylvia.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Why did Pope Francis decide to make this historic trip?</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, because the UAE officials invited him to attend a big interfaith meeting that will take place later today here in Abu Dhabi. It's sponsored by what's called the Muslim Council of Elders. It's an initiative aimed at countering religious fanaticism and promoting a moderate form of Islam. The man behind this is Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. That's the most important center of learning for Sunni Islam. Pope Francis has met him already several times, and they've established a very good relationship. The pope referred to him the other day as a friend and a dear brother.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Now, Catholic-Muslim relations were frozen in 2006 after Francis's predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, quoted a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam with violence. And that speech led to violent actions against Catholics in Muslim countries. It was a big blow to Christian-Muslim dialogue. So today's encounter is seen as another milestone in much, much improved relations.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So how is the pope going to use this moment? I mean, we mentioned he's going to hold Mass. What's the message?</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, the Mass will be tomorrow, and that's being touted already as going to be the biggest public display of Christian worship in the Arabian Peninsula. The UAE has declared 2019 the year of tolerance. It's making a big push to show itself to be a land of inclusion. Only one million of its 9 million citizens are actually Emirati. The rest are foreigners, and close to a million of those are Catholics. But there are even - Islam is the official religion. The Sharia law prevails, and freedom of worship has a lot of restrictions. For instance, no church bells. There are no church bells. Crosses can't be seen in public, and conversion from Islam is a crime punishable by death.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: So it'll be very interesting to see if either in public or private, the pope will call for greater religious freedom and for better protection for non-citizens 'cause this is a country that's also been criticized for its very poor human rights record.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: So it'll be an important encounter for Francis also with Catholics in what he calls the peripheries of the world. It's a new, diverse global Catholicism, many different languages, many cultures. And this is an area where those people, that community, is growing at the same time that long-established Christian communities in the Middle East are dwindling.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So the UAE is also involved in the Saudi war in Yemen. Pope Francis has condemned that war, called it a humanitarian crisis, which it is. Is he likely to have any idea whether he's going to broach this?</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: He probably will because he actually spoke about Yemen yesterday, just before he left Rome, in his Sunday message. And they were really the most forceful remarks he's made yet on the war. He urged all sides to implement the fragile peace deal that was reached in December and to help deliver aid to millions of people who are suffering. He spoke a great deal about the agony of children in this country, in Yemen. And his words were welcomed here by the foreign minister, who said, let's make 2019 the year of peace. So I think it's very likely he will raise his concerns about Yemen while he's here.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Sylvia Poggioli traveling with Pope Francis in Abu Dhabi in the UAE. Sylvia, thanks so much.</s>SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Thank you, Rachel.

The government has raised its projections for how much the price of food will go up. Next year the average breakfast could cost ten percent more. We examine why.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: From NPR News, it's Day to Day. Eating is getting more expensive. The Agriculture Department now says food prices will go up by as much as another five and a half percent this year, and they already are up five percent over last year. Marketplace's Janet Babin is here. Janet, what do these food costs add up to in real money?</s>JANET BABIN: Well, Alex, to figure this out, I called up Ephraim Leibtag over at the Economic Research Service, part of the USDA. And we sort of pretended that we were going to make breakfast for four of our friends at his house. So I would make eight eggs with a half a pound of toast, and use about a half a pound of butter, and he was going to make a pound of bacon for all of us.</s>JANET BABIN: And here's the prices we were working with. Eggs right now cost about $2.07, on average. And last year they only cost a $1.62. They're up a whopping 28 percent. And those are not cage-free, by the way. Butter is up 10 percent over last year. Whole wheat bread is up 17 percent. And bacon was the least changed, 3.55 a pound this year, not too bad. So we tallied it all up, and here is Ephraim with the overall cost of our little breakfast party.</s>Mr. EPHRAIM LEIBTAG (Economist, USDA's Economic Research Service): I got $6.82 cents last year and $7.48 cents now, and so up 10 - that's what I was going to guess - 9.6 percent. So 9.6, almost 10 percent, higher for that breakfast now versus a year ago.</s>JANET BABIN: And Alex, that does not, by the way, include what many consider the most important part of breakfast, the coffee.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Well, what's causing the price increases?</s>JANET BABIN: Well, as we've been hearing, you know, higher - and we know, higher energy costs and feed costs. The ethanol explosion's taking corn away from feed use, and retailers are passing all these costs on to us. But Mike Helmar, with moodyseconomy.com, says there's more going on here.</s>Mr. MICHAEL HELMAR (Director of Industry Economics, Moody's Economy.com): Crop problems around the world. There's high demand for other commodities that aren't fuel related. And there's also a very strong global economy.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: What do they mean, crop problems around the world?</s>JANET BABIN: Yeah. Helmar used wheat as an example to explain this to me. Wheat crops around the world, he said, haven't been meeting demand for several years. So there's no extra wheat lying around, and that really pushes prices up because there's not a grain to spare. It's sort of classic supply and demand.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So are there any food bargains out there? Bacon?</s>JANET BABIN: Bacon is one. And then milk prices are actually starting to fall, Alex. They're still higher than they were a year ago, but they're lower than they were a few months ago. And also, believe it or not, eating out may be a bargain.</s>JANET BABIN: The cost of food away from home is projected to go up this year, but it's expected to go up less than the cost of food you buy at the grocery store. But really, you know, this is the biggest increase in food prices that economists have seen since 1990. And no one's expecting these prices to ease for quite a few years. So maybe we should all get those summer gardens growing.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Good idea. Thank you, Janet. Janet Babin of Public Radio's daily business show Marketplace.

Doctors diagnosed the longtime senator with a malignant brain tumor Tuesday. The Democratic party patriarch went to the hospital after suffering a stroke this weekend. Alex Chadwick talks with science correspondent Richard Knox about the diagnosis.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Madeleine Brand.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: I'm Alex Chadwick. Doctors in Boston say Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, has a malignant brain tumor. It's the apparent cause of the seizure that he suffered on Saturday. With us from Boston, NPR health correspondent Richard Knox. Richard, what kind of brain tumor is this?</s>RICHARD KNOX: It's called a glioma, and it was found in the left parietal lobe of Senator Kennedy's brain. That's at the top of the head, towards the back. There's a - it makes - it's one of the most common - it is, probably, the most common brain tumor of adults. There're about 9,000 a year, which doesn't make it a very common cancer, and we're told that it was found by biopsy, which is - means that they drilled a hole in the head to take a sample of the tissue.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Which means it's pretty conclusive a diagnosis. How is this tumor treated normally?</s>RICHARD KNOX: It's treated with radiation and chemotherapy. The radiation is directed towards the side of the tumor to try to shrink it, and then the chemotherapy is given over a period of months, presumably, to try to get as many of the cells as they can. The doctors say that the particular course of treatment that Senator Kennedy will have is yet to be determined. They need to do more tests. So that's why he's staying in the hospital.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So he is in the hospital. How is he doing there, do we know?</s>RICHARD KNOX: Well, we're told by various accounts that he's got energy and high spirits and is comfortable and has been talking and joking and watching movies and fielding phone calls from people, and well-wishers. You know, I don't think he is suffering any discomfort, from what they say. Also importantly, they say that he has not suffered any further seizures since the one on Saturday morning that brought him to the hospital in the first place.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Is there any more information on what did happen on Saturday?</s>RICHARD KNOX: Yes. His father-in-law provided a little bit more information recently. He said that he'd been playing with his dogs, in a sunny morning on Cape Cod, batting a ball around with his retrievers and felt odd, and he felt that he might fall, so he sat down. He'd been feeling, apparently, perfectly normal and healthy and energetic before that, and people thought it was a stroke because the symptoms of seizures sometimes can mimic those of stroke, and so rushed him to the Cape Cod hospital, and then they put him on a helicopter pretty fast and got him up to Boston where he normally gets his care, at the Mass General.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: So, Richard, tell me, what is the, if there is a general prognosis, for a patient with glioma?</s>RICHARD KNOX: I think we have to be very careful at this point because first of all, we don't know too much about what kind of glioma that he's suffering from, and there are a number of different types and they carry different prognoses. The most aggressive kind, people can die within a year, but there's every reason to think that this may have been discovered early since he hadn't been suffering symptoms before, and he might have a good number of years left with good therapy. I'm sure he'll get good therapy.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: And lots of people live beyond their projected prognosis times, so - NPR's Richard Knox, reporting from Boston. Richard, thank you.</s>RICHARD KNOX: You're welcome.

Having trouble keeping up with your credit cards these days? Our personal finance contributor has some tips to help you manage your plastic.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: Many economists seem to think that the credit crunch is on its way out. Still, a lot of people do carry big credit card bills from good times gone by, and with those bills come big fees.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Here to discuss how to reduce your credit card fees is Day to Day's personal finance contributor, Michelle Singletary. Hi, Michelle.</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Hi, Madeleine.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: A lot of people are trapped in credit card debt. And I think some of the reasons for that is that they don't quite understand what's going on with the rules. There are different interest rates for different purchases, right?</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: That's right. You know, the thing is, people get these cards, and they don't read the fine print. But it's really important to know how to avoid the things that you can control, like paying late. The fees for paying late are just increasing year after year. But that's something that you can control by paying your bill on time.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So you should look at your due date and make sure that your payment will actually get there by the due date?</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: That's right, because companies often change where you have to send your payment. That's one of the traps. Now whether they do that on purpose, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, you need to look at your statement every month. Don't pull out an old bill, in an old envelope, and use that. Look at the current bill, with the current envelope, to make sure that the address is the same.</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: If you pay online like I do, you want to be sure that that address is correct as well. And also, be very careful about the due date. They will move the due date. So let's say you've got your bill set up online, and so you know your bills are typically due the 15th, but they've now moved it, and it's due the 10th. So every month, you want to check the address and the due date to make sure your payment arrives on time.</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: One other thing that people need to watch out for, the over-the-limit fee. Now, it's on average about $39. And you're charged it every single month that you are over that limit. That's something you absolutely control. And the other thing is, if you are paying your bill off every month, you're not even going over the limit. And you really ought not to be using more than 30 percent of your available credit. Because if you do, it hurts your credit score, and that ultimately can impact the interest rate your credit card company charges you.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: What can people do if they all of a sudden realize that they're being charged more in their interest rates from the credit card companies?</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Oftentimes just a single phone call can say, I have been a good customer for X amount of years, I've never been late, or I'm rarely late, I've always paid my bills. A lot of times, they will reduce the rate. Sometimes they won't. But just let them know that you've been a good customer, and you think that this rate is unfair.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: You know, some people trying to outwit the credit card companies think it's a good idea to take advantage of these low or zero interest promotions, and use that promotion to pay off a higher rate credit card debt. Is that a good idea?</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: I do not think that's a good idea. I've had people ask me, I've got this zero percent credit card offer. I'm going to use that to pay off my car note, or my student loan debt. And I tell them, you know what, there is no such thing as a fixed-rate credit card. The companies only have to give you 15 days' notice to change that rate.</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: So now you've taken a fixed-rate debt, like your car loan, and put it on a credit card. Something happens, that rate goes to 20 or 30 percent. And a car loan that you had for 6 percent is now 30 percent. It is not a wise decision because the terms of your credit card deal can change at any time.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Michelle Singletary is Day to Day's personal finance contributor, and she writes the Color of Money column in the Washington Post. Michelle, thank you.</s>MICHELLE SINGLETARY: You're welcome.

In Mianyang, a sports stadium shelters approximately 20,000 survivors of last week's earthquake. Among the refugees are children who have been separated from their parents in the chaos. Many are left wondering if they still have parents.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is Day to Day. I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>ALEX COHEN, host: And I'm Alex Cohen. Madeleine Brand is away. Coming up what the crisis in Myanmar means to one Burmese Buddhist monk.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: A week after the earthquake that devastated Southwest China, that nation paused today for three minutes of quiet reflection. This as news broke that more than 150 relief workers died in landslides over the weekend as they tried to fix roads in the quake region.</s>ALEX COHEN, host: Tens of thousands have perished in the quake. The Shinwan News Service is reporting nearly five million people have been left homeless. Reporter Jamila Trindle reports from one refugee camp at Jiuzhou Stadium in Mianyang where parents and children separated in the quake are now hoping for reunion.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: A little boy blinks up at the strangers surrounding him. He's the youngest of a small group of survivors who walked for two days from their mountain village to this refugee camp. He arrived without parents or relatives. He's immediately swarmed by a group of adults. They begged the boy to eat, and ask him where his family is, but he stays silent, stunned. A young volunteer takes him by the hand.</s>Unidentified Volunteer: (Through a translator) See, we're all taking care of you.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: She begins to lead the new arrivals wide eyed and exhausted away from the crowds towards the registration tables. She tries to reassure both the anxious adults and the child.</s>Unidentified Volunteer: (Through a translator) He still has parents, but they are not here at the moment. He's just arrived. His parents, maybe they are taking care of something.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: The group heads towards the stadium, now surrounded by tens of thousands of refugees. They're in tents that stretch across the grass and down the road, they're packed in under the eaves, and stretched out on blankets. It's all remarkably well ordered, and basic needs are being met. They'll be sequestered inside the stadium with teachers, and students, and hundreds of other children who are waiting for their parents. Concerned people are wondering who will take care of these children in the days and weeks to come, especially if it turns out that their parents are among the thousands of dead. The states say they are coming up with plans to allow for adoption.</s>Unidentified Female: (Through a translator) If there are orphans, we will follow the China adoption law. They will be adopted through that procedure.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: State news agencies say thousands across China have expressed interest in adopting. Even at this camp, people like Juiya Bing (ph), who also is a disaster victim are lining up to register.</s>Ms. JUIYA BING (Earthquake Survivor): (Through a translator) We would share what little we have. I just want to do whatever we can to help.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: She says that's because her family is doing better than many.</s>Ms. JUIYA BING (Earthquake Survivor): (Through a translator) We lost our house, we lost everything. But we can go out and find work because at least we still have our health, so we can support a family. At least we are safe.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: Safe. But like so many here at the stadium, Juiya is still desperately searching. She thinks her nephew was working in Beichuan, one of the most devastated areas.</s>Ms. JUIYA BING (Earthquake Survivor): (Through a translator) If someone has news about Lui Gyi Gene (ph) tell him to contact his little sisters in Ahn Chang(ph).</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: Unable to find her nephew, Juiya is distraught and looking for a way to be useful. She pleads with the camps adoption official. Maybe she can take care of a child who's searching for his parents just to give him the warmth of a family for now. In this camp, everyone is searching for someone, parents for their children and children for their parents. Among the tired little group from Beichuan, a 16-year-old girl and her twin sister can't find their mother and father.</s>Unidentified Girl: (Through a translator) My parents had migrated out to work, so maybe they've gone back home to look for us, but we've already left.</s>JAMILA TRINDLE: A week after the quake everyone is still hoping that at last paths will cross, here in this makeshift city. For NPR News, I'm Jamila Trindle in Mianyang.

Days after voters in the southern Philippines approved an autonomous region aimed at quelling a Muslim insurgency, a long-dormant extremist group is being blamed for two attacks on places of worship.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: In the Philippines now, authorities are urging calm after attacks on places of worship. On Sunday, more than 20 people were killed in a church bombing, and a grenade attack on a mosque left two people dead on Wednesday. These attacks came after voters in the southern part of the country approved a new autonomy plan that was aimed at ending decades of conflict between Muslim separatists and the central government. This is a conflict that has left more than 100,000 people dead. Michael Sullivan reports from Manila.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: The 2017 siege of the city of Marawi by ISIS-linked extremists; the kidnappings, beheadings and bombings by the notorious Abu Sayyaf terror group - these are the things that have grabbed the media spotlight. The new Bangsamoro autonomy plan - not so much.</s>ZACHARY ABUZA: This is the first chance we have for lasting peace in Mindanao. I think people really want to give this a chance.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: That's Zachary Abuza, author of "Forging Peace In Southeast Asia: Insurgencies, Peace Processes, And Reconciliation." Peace in this case has been a long time coming.</s>STEVEN ROOD: Over the last 45 years, there have been numerous attempts to give or negotiate more autonomy, none of which have been actually fulfilled.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Steven Rood is a fellow at the research firm Social Weather Stations in Manila. He also says that this time feels different, after the government passed the law in July and after voters in largely Muslim Mindanao did the same just days before Sunday's church bombing.</s>STEVEN ROOD: Some 85 percent of the people voted in favor of having this new law, which has the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, at least for a three-year transition, running this new autonomous region.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: The mainstream separatist MILF had been fighting the government for over 30 years. But it settled for a deal that gives the region greater autonomy and more control over its rich natural resources.</s>GLENDA GLORIA: It also puts them in charge of the peace and order situation in the region. It gives them a very powerful responsibility - as well as resources - to make sure that peace happens in Mindanao.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: That's a tall order, says Glenda Gloria, managing editor of the online news service Rappler and the co-author of "Under The Crescent Moon: Rebellion In Mindanao," a region that's long suffered from economic and political neglect, one ripe for exploitation by ISIS-linked extremists.</s>GLENDA GLORIA: You have to remember that the out-of-school youth rate in Muslim Mindanao is bigger than the national average. So there are a lot of unschooled young people who are vulnerable to recruitment by ISIS.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: And then there's Marawi. In May 2017, ISIS-linked militants and foreign fighters occupied and held parts of the Muslim-majority city for five months before being driven out or killed by the Philippine military. The city was left in ruins; 15 months later, it still is. Rommel Banlaoi is the chair of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.</s>ROMMEL BANLAOI: The longer you delay the rebuilding of Marawi, the more opportunities for the Islamic State to recruit and replenish their members.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Some analysts say Sunday's church bombing was meant to disrupt the peace process. But Samira Gutoc, a Marawi native who helped draft the new law, isn't worried.</s>SAMIRA GUTOC: There's always a sporadic incident of bombing grenade that would happen when a landmark event happens in Bangsamoro. And the landmark event right now is the Bangsamoro Organic Law "yes" vote.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Scare tactics, she says, haven't worked in the past and shouldn't now.</s>SAMIRA GUTOC: There's no Muslim-Christian conflict here. Religion is not the problem. It is just about wackos out there who think that they have the monopoly of what's right.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: But security analyst Rommel Banlaoi says the challenges in Mindanao go way beyond Muslim extremists.</s>ROMMEL BANLAOI: From the ruling oligarchs, from the warlords, from the criminal groups and even from Christian local politicians - if the MILF cannot make a difference, then I think the Mindanao conflict will persist.</s>MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: For NPR News, I'm Michael Sullivan in Manila.

Senate rebukes Trump's Syria decision. Legal documents allegedly detail allegations of years of deceptive opioid practices. A new experiment in the U.S. aimes at creating gene-edited human embryos.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Senate Republicans disagree with the president.</s>MITCH MCCONNELL: ISIS and al-Qaida have yet to be defeated. And American national security interests require continued commitment to our mission.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell there.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah, as the Senate did something it does not do that often - Republicans have been reluctant to break with President Trump, even when some may disagree with him. But they did just that yesterday, rebuking his decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley is with us this morning. Hi, Scott.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: As Steve noted, it is not that often that Republicans publicly break with President Trump on policy. Tell us exactly what was voted on yesterday. What are the consequences of it?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Well, Rachel, this rebuke of the president was big. And it was bipartisan. Sixty-eight senators voted for this resolution, including 43 out of 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans. The resolution is nonbinding, but it does give a strong sense of the Senate, that a precipitous withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan could put at risk what senators called the hard-won military gains that the U.S. has in those countries.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And, of course, the president had come out and said explicitly that he wants all troops out of Syria and kind of ripped the rug out from under negotiators in Afghanistan who are trying to come up with a peace deal. I mean, do you think Senate Republicans felt emboldened because of what they heard from intelligence officials this week on Capitol Hill?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Well, certainly, that was one of a number of areas where the intelligence community took issue with what the president has been saying. They stressed that ISIS has certainly not been defeated, even though its territorial holdings have been dramatically reduced. They said there's still a lot of ISIS fighters out there. And they still pose a potential threat.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Scott, I just want to note. I'm trying to do a little bit of math on the fly here. You said 43 Republicans voted to rebuke the president, that 68 overall did. It sounds to me like Democrats, actually, were more divided on this than Republicans were. The Republicans were more strongly in favor of keeping troops in Syria and Afghanistan.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Well - and in particular, the senators who are running for president (laughter) were mostly opposed to this resolution.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What does this mean practically for U.S. policy in these countries? I mean, does this - is this just talk, as we often hear, or does this actually affect the Pentagon's plans?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Hard to say for sure - obviously, this is not the first rebuke of the president. This is the issue that forced the resignation of Trump's defense secretary Jim Mattis, as well as his anti-ISIS czar Brett McGurk. And the president himself has already backpedaled somewhat, at least in terms of the timing of withdrawing troops from Syria. Remember; back in mid-December when he first announced this move, it was supposed to be virtually immediate. But then after a Christmas visit to Iraq, the president suggested, well, if the military needs a little bit more time, that's fine with him. In now the month and a half or so since the president's announcement, we've actually seen very little in the way of troop withdrawal, although there has been some equipment pulled out of Syria.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: So we'll see.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Just briefly before I let you go - another rift between Congress and the president - obviously, border security. This bipartisan group is trying to negotiate a deal to prevent another shutdown - President Trump now indicating none of what they are doing actually matters.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: In an interview with The New York Times, the president suggested that he is prepared to go ahead with a national emergency if the Democrats don't give ground at the bargaining table. Although we should say he has hinted that before and hasn't pulled the trigger yet.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley. Thanks, Scott.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: You're welcome.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Here's a startling number. More than 130 people in the United States die every day because of an overdose on opioids.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: One common culprit is the painkiller OxyContin, which is produced by Purdue Pharma. And we now have a bit more information about the way that Purdue Pharma spread the use of that drug. New disclosures came from a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in Massachusetts. They allegedly show that a member of the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, gave directions to the company in an email. And this email said to prioritize selling higher doses of OxyContin in 2008. That order came even after the company had admitted to misleading the public about the drug's risk of addiction. The disclosures also allege, by the way, that the Sacklers earned more than $4 billion in opioid profits just since 2007.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Martha Bebinger of WBUR is here to give us even more details. Martha, people will hear that and think, this is awful. Were people profiting knowing that these drugs were highly addictive?</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: That's right. This is a lawsuit, Rachel, that was filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. She is claiming that Purdue and the Sacklers marketed the opioid drugs as safe, even though they knew the risk of addiction, and in doing so did help cause the opioid epidemic. Now, this is all playing out in Massachusetts, one of the hardest hit states, where between five and six residents are dying every day on average. And one report found that Massachusetts lost $15.2 billion as a result of the epidemic in 2017 alone.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What more can you tell us about these new filings that came out last night?</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: Well, the latest version of the complaint, which is the heart of this lawsuit that's been filed, lifts hundreds of lines that had been blacked out. So what we see now are board notes about payments that allegedly totaled hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the Sacklers. In 2009, for example, the complaint says the Sacklers paid themselves $335 million. They spent 122 on sales reps to ramp up their profits. At the same time, they allegedly acknowledged the harm OxyContin was causing by approving 2.7 million in personal injury claims. So, Rachel and Steve, there's some more in here. There's emails directly from the Sackler member, as Steve mentioned earlier, pushing for greater sales, allegedly. There's talk of Purdue starting to sell drugs that would treat addiction. So that's the problem they were allegedly fostering...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah.</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: ...And also getting into the business of Narcan - the drug that reverses an opioid overdose. That plan did not go forward.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: There are hundreds of lawsuits against Purdue in states and cities across the country for the company's role in the opioid epidemic. So how could this case in Massachusetts have an influence over those other suits?</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: Hundreds of those lawsuits are consolidated in one court in Ohio. The documents used to build this case that we're talking about in Massachusetts are all on file in Ohio. Massachusetts was the first state and the first suit to name the Sacklers and other board members. But other parties could use that same model going forward.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Any word from the Sacklers and Purdue on any of this?</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: The attorney for the Sacklers claim they don't even belong in the lawsuit. She - the attorney plans to argue that there's no jurisdiction because they had no direct dealings in Massachusetts. And Purdue says Massachusetts is just trying to vilify them, even though they had a small piece of the market and that the complaint is riddled with inaccurate allegations.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow - important story. WBUR's Martha Bebinger for us this morning about it. Thanks so much, Martha. We appreciate it.</s>MARTHA BEBINGER, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR has learned about a new experiment that's being conducted here in the U.S., aimed at creating gene-edited human embryos.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Now, let's be clear. This experiment is not trying to make gene-edited babies. The world condemned a scientist for saying he'd done that in China. The goal of this new experiment is to see if it may someday be possible to safely make more gene-edited babies to prevent genetic diseases - seeing if it is someday possible. But this is still a controversial idea.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR health correspondent Rob Stein is breaking this exclusive news today. And he joins us this morning. Rob, who is conducting this experiment?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: So, Rachel, the scientist's name is Dieter Egli. And he's a developmental biologist at Columbia University in New York. And he says he's just trying to do the basic research to find out if a powerful new gene-editing technique known as CRISPR can repair genetic mutations in human embryos in the hopes of possibly - someday - allowing parents carrying genetic mutations that cause terrible diseases to have healthy babies. In this case, he's trying to fix a mutation that causes blindness.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So can you remind us how this is different than what happened in China?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, so that scientist announced that two twin girls had been born using embryos that he had edited with CRISPR in his lab. And he said he did it to try to make them immune to the AIDS virus. But that was universally kind of condemned for being irresponsible and unethical because he rushed ahead before anyone knows if this kind of thing really works and, more importantly, would be safe.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So this New York scientist, he's trying to do the basic research to answer these important questions. Why is what he is doing controversial?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Right. So many scientists think this is exactly the kind of basic research that needs to be done if anyone's ever going to know whether, you know, it might be possible to repair a genetic defect in human embryos, you know, and safely prevent genetic diseases. But others say, look. Even just doing the basic research might encourage other scientists to go rogue. And you're just kind of creating the recipe for how this could be abused to, for example, you know, try to make designer babies. And that raises all kinds of really profound moral and ethical questions.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. What is his response to that critique?</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: So he says, look. I'm not trying to make gene-edited babies yet. I'm nowhere near that. And I have no intention of making, you know, designer babies. I'm doing the opposite of what happened in China. I'm trying to be very careful and methodical. Let's listen to a little bit of what he had to say.</s>DIETER EGLI: We can't just do the editing and then hope everything goes right and implant that into a womb. That's not responsible. We have to first do the basic research to see what happens. That's what we are doing here.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Right. And he's also trying to be really, you know, transparent and not be secretive. Like, some people say the Chinese scientist says, he's even let me, you know, come to his lab recently and literally stand over his shoulder as he pierced human eggs with a tiny needle to fertilize them with sperm carrying this blindness mutation and then did his experiment to see if this CRISPR gene-editing tool could fix the mutation. And here's a key moment during that experiment. Let's listen to a little bit of that.</s>DIETER EGLI: The membrane is broken, breached. There we go - sperm and CRISPR tool in the egg.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Oh, you did it. Yeah.</s>DIETER EGLI: Yeah, got it.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Nerve wracking.</s>DIETER EGLI: Very.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I can't believe you were allowed to watch that.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, it was pretty amazing. And it was, you know, went on for hours. He edited one egg after another, fertilizing it and then injecting this CRISPR tool to try to, you know, fix this genetic mutation. It's pretty amazing to watch - stand there and watch this happening in real time.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. Well, we'll see about the implications of all this - pretty amazing. Rob Stein, NPR health correspondent - Rob, thanks so much for bringing us this news. We appreciate it.</s>ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Oh, sure. My pleasure, Rachel.

The White House has wavered on whether President Bush's remarks about "appeasement of terrorists" were aimed at Barack Obama. Which is it? News analyst Juan Williams talks with Alex Chadwick about news from the week in politics.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand. In a few minutes a preview of this weekend's new movies.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: First, NPR News analyst Juan Williams. Juan, here's a voice in the political debates this week.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: President GEORGE W. BUSH: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: That's President Bush, of course speaking in Israel on his visit there, and he went on to the experience of World War II and Hitler.</s>President BUSH: We have an obligation to call this what it is. The false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: But Juan, it's current events that resonate here. Iran, and Senator Obama saying that he would talk with hostile leaders. Isn't that really what Mr. Bush is saying here, and didn't the White House kind of both confirm that, and then denied that?</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, they did confirm it. It's interesting though, the response from the White House, and from conservatives around Washington this week, was the president didn't mention any names. What are these Democrats so excited about?</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: It must be that they have guilty consciences, and they see their faces written large across the president's words, and of course Barack Obama, famously said in a debate with Hillary Clinton, that he would talk to people that had been previously treated as America's enemies. But I don't think there's any doubt, that he was taking a political swipe at Senator Obama.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: And what really strikes me, is that you have a sense here of the question being, what would Senator Obama have to say to people in Hamas, or people in Iran. The counter-argument coming from the Obama campaign is, well, we have to engage.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: But Mr. Bush has been very clear in saying, he doesn't want to get involved in the political campaign at all. He's turned away reporters' questions repeatedly at press conferences, saying that they're just edging into the political debate. Do you think he's asserting perhaps now, that he will have some kind of role in the fall campaign?</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, as Senator Obama could only hope, Alex. He would love to run against George W. Bush, a man with such low ratings. Even Senator McCain is running against President Bush, if you stop and think about it. I mean, on the war, on - he said, you know, let's have a time to get out now.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: Global warming, on Hurricane Katrina, talking with Congress. I think everybody is running against President Bush. So, I think his role will be slight and very tactful, if you will, and this is an example of it.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: We spoke earlier in the program about this ruling by the California State Supreme Court, overturning the state's ban on gay marriage. Is this now going to be an issue in the fall campaign, gay marriage again?</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: I'm not sure. But I think that it picks up on something that is going to be an issue in the campaign, which is McCain making the charge that Senator Obama is out of touch. And by that extension, you would argue that, oh, look at what the California Supreme Court has done. And if you think back to '04, after the Massachusetts' Supreme Court allowed gay marriage in that state, President Bush used it to his advantage, and especially in battleground mid-western states.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: Right now, that issue, according to Pew polling, is important, or very important to about 43 percent of American voters. Forty-three percent is pretty high. The problem for McCain, unlike Bush, is that McCain has been opposed to a constitutional amendment, banning same-sex marriage. That puts him in odds with some conservatives.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: And it makes him a dubious carrier for the message, you know, flying the banner of opposition to gay marriage. He's someone who says that same-sex couples should have all the same rights. But that's the same message that comes from Barack Obama.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: I do see that Senator Obama is picking up more delegates. He picked up some delegates from Senator Edwards this week. He's getting closer. I think he's only about 130 delegates away, from that number of 2026 that he would need to secure the nomination.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: You're right. I think we are getting closer, but I - what was really telling to me as an indicator of this, Alex, is watching a little TV and seeing the latest Obama ads in which he's got, you know, a picture of himself with a huge cross. He's talking about what a patriot he is.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: And large - the measure in response to the fact that the big advantage that Senator McCain holds over Senator Obama going forward, is that Americans see Senator McCain as better able to protect the country, while Obama holds a lead of course on issues like healthcare, and gasoline prices, and the economy.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: So, yes, I think that we are closer to the general election, and I think you're going to see fewer and fewer mentions. Already we're seeing few mentions of Senator Clinton in any of Senator Obama's speeches, and of course Senator McCain and President Bush are aiming their fire at Senator Obama.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: NPR News analyst Juan Williams will be following that campaign with you. Thanks, Juan.</s>JUAN WILLIAMS: You're welcome, Alex.

Authorities in China and Myanmar are concerned that the bodies of victims of natural disasters could cause epidemics among survivors. But public health officials say the likelihood that dead bodies imperil the lives of survivors is remote. Alex Chadwick talks with Dr. Oliver Morgan, an epidemiologist who has studied the links between death and infection.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: Chinese authorities say the final death toll from the earthquake may exceed 50,000. And aid workers in Myanmar think as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the cyclone that hit that country earlier this month. Many people fear, with all these bodies, that there could be an increase in the spread of disease. Probably not, says Dr. Oliver Morgan, he's a researcher with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. He studies the risk of infection from dead bodies. He joins us from Geneva, Switzerland. Dr. Morgan, based on your research, what risk do corpses pose for the living?</s>Dr. OLIVER MORGAN (Researcher, U.S. Centers for Disease Control): Well, we found that the risk to the public is negligible. And the risk to individuals directly recovering and identifying the dead is small, and can really be reduced really simply by using measures such as wearing gloves and washing hands.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Well why is it then, that there are often outbreaks of disease with all these corpses resulting from big natural disasters?</s>Dr. OLIVER MORGAN (Researcher, U.S. Centers for Disease Control): Actually the number of disasters which result in the outbreaks of disease is surprisingly small, and where disease outbreaks do occur, they are almost exclusively due to infections that are passed between the living survivors of the disaster, rather than the dead themselves. It's also worth bearing in mind that really in a short period of time, let's say a day to two days after a person has died, the types of diseases that can live inside us and cause outbreaks tend not to be able to survive in a dead body for very long.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Hasn't it long been a sort of common wisdom that after a disaster you should deal with the dead as quickly as possible either through cremation or mass burials? People want to get these bodies out of the way, and often the kind of presumption is that you are doing it for health reasons.</s>Dr. OLIVER MORGAN (Researcher, U.S. Centers for Disease Control): That is actually very common, and it's something that we're working very hard to counter, is this fear that these dead bodies are going to cause an outbreak, and then, which would precipitate in a knee jerk reaction by the authorities to dispose of them rapidly. The main problem with this rapid disposal, as we have often seen on television, of throwing bodies into mass graves is that it really causes risk of psychological damage to the survivors, the relatives and the friends. And that occurs because you are unable to identify the deceased, and that interrupts the natural grieving process that we all go through when a family member dies. And also there's a trauma associated with people seeing mass graves, and treatment of dead bodies in such a crude way.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Dr. Morgan, could I ask how is it that you came to be interested in this? Why did you start studying this subject?</s>Dr. OLIVER MORGAN (Researcher, U.S. Centers for Disease Control): Well, it is rather an unusual topic to be interested in. But I got interested in it from my firsthand experiences working disasters, and on several occasions was asked by local authorities and other ministries of health, what should be done, and what the risks were. And to my surprise, I found that there was no clear information available to people responding to these big disasters. So it really came out of my firsthand experience that I saw the necessity for this type of information to become available.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Oliver Morgan is an epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. He's worked on a variety of humanitarian relief projects. He joined us from Geneva, Switzerland. Dr. Morgan, thank you.</s>Dr. OLIVER MORGAN (Researcher, U.S. Centers for Disease Control): Thank you.

California's Supreme Court has ruled the state can't ban same-sex marriage, but legal challenges loom. Alex Chadwick talks with Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, about what gay marriage opponents plan to do to fight Thursday's ruling.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is Day to Day. I'm Madeleine Brand.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: I'm Alex Chadwick. Coming up, an online group of angry renters says that a housing bill in Congress would make it harder for them to buy homes. The renters group, though, was founded by some very rich people who already own mansions, including Steve Forbes.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: First, what now that California's highest court has legalized gay marriage? Some gay couples are planning weddings. Opponents are trying to overturn the ruling. They've gathered signatures to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the California ballot this fall.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Maggie Gallagher runs the National Organization for Marriage. It's one of the groups working to get that amendment on the ballot. Maggie Gallagher, what exactly does your petition say?</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Well, it takes the language of Proposition 22, which was backed by 62 percent of California voters in the year 2000, and was just overturned by the Supreme Court, and it puts that language in the constitution. So it would not affect the civil unions that same-sex couples already enjoy under Californian law. It would simply ensure that marriage itself remains the union of a man and a woman in California.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: What is different for you today in this battle than yesterday, in the 24 hours since the California Supreme Court ruled?</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Well, the first thing is that there's a certain amount of shock and awe and, you know, I don't like to use the word outrage, but that really is what we are getting. Four judges just overturned four million California voters. They overruled the voters, and they did so in a very sweeping and radical way. And this is the first court in the country - not even the Massachusetts court found that there's a fundamental human right to same-sex marriage. And this is also the court that said - that ruled, and by the way, it's a court with no black person on it, that orientation is going to be treated just like race under California law.</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): It really means that our government is now in the business - in California -of saying that people, like me, who think marriage is the union of husband and wife, are exactly like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. And that means that people in these faith traditions are going to be treated like racists in the public square if we don't overturn this decision.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: You have all these signatures to get this on the ballot in November. They have to be validated by counties across the state.</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Right.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: If that indeed goes through, what are you going to do?</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Well, the next step is to raise about 10 million dollars, to do a major media war. The gay marriage advocates have pledged to raise 15 million dollars.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Well, you know, I wondered, are you making your fund raising appeal in California or nationally? That is, is this...</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Well, we raised nearly one million dollars in just a couple of weeks to get this on the ballot in California, and that was almost entirely from California donors. There was a major contribution from the Knights of Columbus, actually. But most of it is local California donors. So yeah, non-California is a valid initiative committee under California state law. And I accept we'll be raising the bulk of money from Californians. But if this decision stands, it's really going to nationalize gay marriage.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: I just wondered - I raised that because I wonder about the effect of this issue raised again, in the context of the year of a national political campaign.</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Well, we don't get to choose. We would love, you know - I would just love it if we could get beyond the cultural wars, and focus on other issues. But to do that, we're going to stop having courts kind of dropping you these nuclear bombs, upping the ante on the cultural issues that are important to lots of Americans. I'm not - I don't know. You'd probably have to ask somebody who's more politically savvy than I am about what this will mean for presidential politics. That's really not my concern. My concern is to protect marriage and religious liberty in the State of California and the rest of the United States.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. Maggie, thank you.</s>Ms. MAGGIE GALLAGHER (President, National Organization for Marriage): Thank you.

Cash-strapped drinkers are starting to switch to lower-priced beers. Since January, Miller Brewing Company has seen a shift from higher-priced, premium beers to less expensive brands such as Miller High Life and Milwaukee's Best. Hear Nancy Marshall-Genzer of Marketplace.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From NPR News, it's Day to Day. Is nothing sacred in this economy? Now, beer drinkers are having to make sacrifices. They're trading in their fancy micro brews for, well, something more ordinary. Marketplace's Nancy Marshall-Genzer is here now. Nancy, so when did beer drinkers start going for the cheaper brews?</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Well, Madeleine, actually quite recently. By the way, and just for research purposes, I'm actually cracking open a can of beer here, so I can totally (unintelligible)...</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: It's just so I can relate little better.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Yeah, I wish I could share, but you know, that would be a cross-country beer run, because I'm in Washington, you're in L.A. But I will drink to your health.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Thank you.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Welcome. So, you were asking when the cheaper beer started getting more popular. Miller's CEO Tom Long says, they started noticing an increase in sales of economy beers in January. And it looks like that increase came at the expense of higher-priced beers. Long says sales of Miller genuine draft, for example, were down more that 10 percent.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: OK. I'll let you have another sip. I'll ask you this question.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Oh, thank you. Thank you.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So Miller, Long, they're blaming the economy. They're saying people just can't afford to buy fancy beer.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: That's exactly right. And Long says, this is a direct result of people having less disposable income, less money in their pockets every week. Now, a lot of people assume that we drink more during tough economic times. And listening to me, you'd think that is the case.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Clearly.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: But I asked David Henkes about that today, before I started drinking. And he's a food and beverage industry analyst with Technomic.</s>Mr. DAVID HENKES (Food and Beverage Industry Analyst, Technomic): People drink differently in a down economy. I don't know - want to say that they drink more or drink less, you know, but clearly, there's some behavior modification going on that is coming as part of the economy.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: And I imagined, Madeleine, there's quite a bit of behavior modification going on, when people drink, but that's a different subject. And thus far, all we know for sure, is that people are actually drinking cheaper beer.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Cheaper beer. What about cheaper wine? Do you have a bottle of Night Train stashed in your desk?</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Unfortunately, I didn't have time to go out and get some wine. I just got the beer. That will be later. But it does look like people are drinking cheaper wine. And I have that at least anecdotally. I got the picture on wine from Dennis Manuel. And he's a wine rep for Strange Wines there in Los Angeles.</s>Mr. DENNIS MANUEL (Wine Representative for Strange Wines, Los Angeles): The retailers are doing well now, they tell me, because I think people are buying wine, and drinking it at home, rather than going out to restaurants, and having dinners, and drinking wine.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: And yes, people are bringing cheaper wine home. Manuel says they are bringing it home. It's in a 10 to 20 dollar range. And those bottles are selling quite well.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Hmm. So, but that comes at the expense of the restaurants?</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Yeah. And we have some numbers on that. In the first quarter of this year, 31 percent of consumers said they had a drink away from home. That's down from 42 percent last year.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: All right, Nancy. Cheers. You're off to a rollicking start. Thank you very much. Happy weekend.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Bottoms up.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Nancy Marshall Genzer of Public Radio's daily business show, Marketplace.</s>NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Thank you.

University of California Berkeley law professor Jesse Choper discusses the legal ramifications of the California Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage.

MADELEINE BRAND, host: We turn now to UC Berkeley Law professor Jesse Choper to help us understand what happens next in the legal process. So, what if Maggie Gallagher is successful, and California voters this fall do approve of constitutional amendment that says marriages between one man and one woman, what would that do to yesterday's ruling?</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, it would overturn it, in plain English. It would be an amendment to the California constitution. Yesterday's decision interpreted the California constitution. If the amendment were to pass, that would change the court's ruling as to what the constitution needs.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: And then, what could happen?</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, my guess is, that there are going to be law suits brought by people who are in favor of same-sex marriage, to challenge the constitutionality under the Federal Constitution, of the newly amended provision of the California constitution. And that ultimately, you know, promises to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Now, is there anything in the Federal Constitution that would be at odds with an amendment to the California constitution, defining marriages between one man and one woman?</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, the pro-same-sex marriage people are certainly going to find two provisions of the constitution that they're going to argue, lead to the conclusion, a prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. One is, what the court has held to be a fundamental right to marry, which this interferes with. Not that it's an absolute right, but it's a right. And the argument they will make, is this is a discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Which it plainly is. And that that discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and that sexual orientation, much like gender, race, ethnicity, are to be given special consideration by the court.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: The opponents, though, I'm sure would argue that civil unions are good enough, and that they afford enough protection under the 14th amendment.</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Yes, well, they certainly argue that, and the response is going to be that, if this a class, it's entitled to be treated in almost all circumstances, like any other class. Then marriage is different than civil unions. Everyone perceives it to be different. Even the people who are in favor of it, well, that's what the argument will be. I mean, they favor it, because it's not marriage.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Right. So, you can't have it both ways, is what you're saying.</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, that's what they're going to argue.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Now, Maggie Gallagher told Alex, that this was a case of four judges overruling the will of four million voters, who approved a ban on gay marriage eight years ago.</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, that's not an unfair characterization, but that doesn't make it wrong. I mean, any time a court holds that something is unconstitutional, then they're holding that the will of the people's elected representatives, or the people themselves, or agents of the people's selected representatives, that acted beyond their constitutional power. And our system empowers courts to be the final arbiters, of what the constitution means, at least, in respect of litigation between different parties.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: How do you read this? I mean, eight years ago, it was an overwhelming support for a ban on gay marriage, eight years later, how are you reading it?</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Well, polls are notoriously unreliable, but you know, the general word is there seems to be a changing sentiment now. I've certainly talked to people on both sides of this issues, those on the side of legitimating same-sex marriage feel - are hoping that there's enough of a change in sentiments, that the constitution amendment will fail.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, if it does fail, would that be the end of it, as far as California is concerned?</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): Yes. If the Supreme Court has interpreted what the California Constitution means, if the voters failed to change it, then that's the law in California. There's no place else to go. The people who are proposing the amendment are doing all that they can do.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: Jesse Choper is a constitutional law expert teaching at the University of California Law School. Thank you.</s>Dr. JESSE CHOPER (Constitutional Law, University of California-Berkeley Law School): You're certainly welcome.

News & Notes Web producer Geoffrey Bennett talks with Farai Chideya about the stories building buzz online, including comparisons between the relief centers for California wildfire evacuees and those available during Hurricane Katrina.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In just a minute, we'll get to our weekly Bloggers' Roundtable.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But first, an update on the stories building - buzz on our blog News and Views.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I am joined by NEWS & NOTES Web producer Geoffrey Bennett. Hey, Geoff.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Hey, Farai.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There's all this B-L buzz blogosphere blah, blah, blah.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Right. It's a bit much, right?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But we do have bluzz in the blogosphere. So what are we talking about?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Well, we're talking about, as you talked about earlier in the show, the differing emergency responses to the California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina. We posed the question on our blog, is it fair to make a comparison? And if so, what are the differences?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Now, some said it was a simple matter of leadership. Others said it boiled down to differences of race and class. Now, here's what folks said.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Raven Beasley(ph), who reads our blog, says the difference between Katrina and the California fires are two different classes of citizens: rich versus poor, black versus white.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Our reader named Leila(ph) who actually lives in Southern California wrote, fires are common in the area. And, luckily, we have state and local governments that are prepared for an event like this.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: And Ernice(ph), one of our listeners who comes to our blog pretty frequently, says, I look at the success of California's evacuation as a positive from the disaster of Katrina and what happened at the Super Dome. Hopefully, those that were spearheading the effort learned what not to do.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, we also had a heated conversation about race and intelligence. What's the response been?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Yeah. We started following that issue right after a geneticist, James Watson, made the comment about Africans being intellectually inferior to Westerners. Watson has since apologized. He's been suspended by his research institution, but folks in our blog were not sympathetic in the least. Some people call it scientific racism.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: One person said, since race is a social construct, not a biological one, that alone undermines this line of research.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: A woman named Judy Wylene(ph), who reads our blog, says, data in itself is value neutral, the question is always what people will do with it.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: And Cee Robinson(ph), a reader who goes by the handle - goes by that handle, said, the saddest thing is not that another esteemed scientist asserts blacks to intellectually inferior; what's sad is that many blacks deep down in their gut also believe it to be true. They believe in their own inferiority.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: And so that conversation is still ongoing.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. And what are some of the other popular topics popping off?</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Well, folks are still talking about the thousands of men in Philadelphia who volunteer to patrol the streets there in an effort to curb crime.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: They're talking about director Tyler Perry's success contrasted with artistic the merits of his movies and his plays.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: And they're also talking about Barack Obama making news for his ties to gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. And McClurkin has made controversial comments about gays and lesbians. And now, folks are calling on Obama to break ties with him.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: So folks can jump in any of those topics on our blog, News and Views.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. And they are certainly going to pop off on our Blogger's Roundtable about McClurkin.</s>GEOFFREY BENNETT: Yeah.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: 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 from our studios at NPR West.

Writer Mark Jordan Legan tells us what critics are saying about Sangre de mi Sangre, the Sundance Grand Jury prize-winner; Garcia Girls, an indie film starring Ugly Betty's America Ferrara; and the next installment in the Narnia chronicles: Prince Caspian.

ALEX CHADWICK, host: It - this is Day to Day from NPR News. I'm Alex Chadwick.</s>MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand. Well, it's not here yet. You have to wait one more week, until the summer blockbuster Indiana Jones hits theaters. Meanwhile, searching for fashion, and a father, and a dreamy prince, are all possibilities this weekend at the movies.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Two are smaller indie films. One could bring in some royal box-office figures. Here with slate.com summary judgment is Mark Jordan Legan.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: A film starring America Ferrera, TV's Ugly Betty, is getting a re-release because of Ferrera's new popularity. The indie comedy, "How the Garcia Girls Spent Their Summer," focuses on three generations, dealing with love and romance during a heat wave. Elizabeth Pena also stars.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Unidentified Actress #1: How can you go out in public dressing like that?</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Unidentified Actress #2: What's wrong with wearing this?</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Unidentified Actress #1: I can see everything in that dress.</s>Ms. AMERICA FERRERA: (As Blanca) You should just wear a thong, because then you wouldn't see the underwear line, or you could just wear no underwear.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: The critics feel like flirting with these Garcia girls. The Chicago Tribune gushes a subtly, beautiful tapestry, that's both entertaining and deeply effecting, and Film Thread calls it a quaint little film that's easily overlooked, but a savory lazy day treat, if noticed and given a chance. Next up in limited release, is the foreign drama "Sangre de Mi Sangre," where a young Mexican immigrant travels to New York City to find the father he's never met, only to fall victim to a con man.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Unidentified Actor #1: Hey.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Unidentified Actor #2: Senor? Papa?</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: The nation's critics praised, and slammed the film, which won the Sundance Grand Jury prize a few years back. Contrite, but compelling, complains the Village Voice. New York magazine offers "Sangre de Mi Sangre" serves up an old-fashioned, sentimental weepy, with a sucker punch of urban, immigrant horror.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: And the New York Times sighs, grim and frustrating. The major release today, is the sequel to 2005's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Many of you might have seen the brooding, bedroom-eyes of hot young actor Ben Barnes, wielding a sword on all the billboards promoting, "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian."</s>Mr. BEN BARNES: (as Prince Caspian) I think it's time we found out what went on here.</s>Ms. ANNA POPPLEWELL: (As Susan Pevensie) Who are you?</s>Mr. BEN BARNES: (as Prince Caspian) I am Prince Caspian.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Yes. The lovable children return to Narnia, to help the prince battle for his rightful claim to the throne. So, once again, it's all about the royal family.</s>Mr. SKANDAR KEYNES: (As Edmund Pevensie) I don't remember any ruins in Narnia.</s>Ms. GEORGIE HENLEY: (as Lucy Pevensie) I wonder who lived here.</s>Ms. ANNA POPPLEWELL: (as Susan Pevensie) I think we did.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Overall, the reviews are rather chipper, even though the San Francisco Chronicle whines, no epic scale and no spirit, many agree with USA Today which shouts, an exhilarating fantasy-adventure. And the Philadelphia Inquirer cheers, an elaborately presented feast.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Yes, they certainly have been promoting this movie between the bus ads and the billboards, the poster is everywhere, and I'm getting so tired of getting stopped on the street, and being asked if I'm the hot, sexy guy who plays Prince Caspian. I'm telling you. These smoldering good looks are a curse.</s>MARK JORDAN LEGAN: Oh, wait. That's right. You wonderful listeners can't see me. Well, you'll just have to take my word for it. Heh, heh, heh. Or I guess you could ask Madeleine.</s>ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mark Jordan Legan, an attractive writer, a real prince living in Los Angeles.

When an officer kills someone with his or her firearm, an investigation almost always follows. Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Lawrence Mower explains how districts respond when incidents occur, and former police officer David Klinger explains how officers determine when to use deadly force. Read Lawrence Mower's Las Vegas Review-Journal investigative series, "Always Justified."

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. A police officer draws a weapon and fires. We see that on TV dramas every night. But what actually happens afterwards? Do investigators check the flight of every bullet? What kind of questions do officers face, and what kind of sanctions if they messed up?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: What changes if somebody's killed or injured? And what questions will a cop ask him or herself the next night, the next year, for the rest of their lives? If you're a cop, call and tell us what happened after you discharged your weapon. 800-989-8255. Email is 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, a viral video appears to show U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban dead in Afghanistan. Marines, how does this happen? Email us now. The address again is talk@npr.org. But first, what happens after police officers open fire? We begin with David Klinger, a former cop in Los Angeles and Redmond, Washington. He now teaches criminology and wrote about the use of deadly force in his book "Into the Kill Zone," and joins us by phone from Houston. Nice to have you with us today.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Thanks for having me on again.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this is both your area of study and your story.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Yes it is.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: What happened?</s>DAVID KLINGER: When I was a young police officer in Los Angeles, four months out of the academy, a crazy guy with a knife tried to murder my partner, stabbed him in the chest, knocked him on the ground. I was on the other side of the street. As I'm running across the street, the suspect jumped on top of my partner and tried to drive the knife through his throat.</s>DAVID KLINGER: My partner managed to grab the suspect's wrist and prevent that from happening. When I got to my partner's side a few seconds later, I tried to disarm the suspect, wasn't able to and had to shoot him.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And it sounds like there couldn't be anything more clear cut, yet I suspect you've been thinking about that off and on ever since.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Not ever since, but it took me about 20 years. The first 20 years, there were some difficult moments. And then about 10 years ago, I said: You know what, Dave? It does nobody any good. The situation's behind. And as you pointed out, Neal, there really wasn't anything else that could be done. And I came to peace with it, and I've been fine ever since.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Now as you have approached this from a professional standpoint, did you find a lot of studies of police officers and how they used their weapons and what happened afterwards?</s>DAVID KLINGER: There hadn't been a lot of studies back in the late '90s, which is what led me to do the study that I did that led to my book. And basically, for "Kill Zone," what I did - it was a study that was funded by the United States Department of Justice, interviewed 80 cops around the nation who'd been involved in shootings. And one of the things I asked them about was what happened in the aftermath.</s>DAVID KLINGER: And to make a very long story short, the vast majority of officers in the short term have some notable disruption in terms of intrusive thoughts, in terms of maybe an inability to sleep or something like that. But after a few weeks, for most officers, those problems dissipate. And so the long-term consequences for most officers are actually quite good. Only about 20 percent of the officers had any sort of negative consequence that lingered past three months.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And in the majority of cases, as in the vast majority of cases, as in your case, the investigation that succeeds an incident like that finds that the officer was not at fault, did nothing wrong. But these are - these are tricky moments for a police officer, no?</s>DAVID KLINGER: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, my situation was, as you pointed out, clear-cut. I knew exactly what I was dealing with. It was an individual who was trying to murder a fellow officer. Sometimes it's not so clear-cut.</s>DAVID KLINGER: I've been in numerous situations when I was a young officer where I could have shot, but decided not to because the posture of the suspect, because the way he or she was manipulating the gun in their hand, that type of thing. And also circumstances where officers shoot, they think there's a gun, it turns out there's not a gun. Then it becomes highly problematic. So...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A case just in Texas in the last couple of weeks of an eighth-grader holding a realistic-looking toy, and it turns out that he was shot to death. Obviously, we're going to have to wait for the investigation to find out all the details there, but this happens too often. And wow, those officers must feel terrible.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Yeah. You know, police officers sign up to protect the public from dangerous threats. And when, as in the case you just mentioned, everything appears to look like I have a serious threat. Here's an individual who has brought a gun to school, you know, guns in our sanctuaries. We cannot let this individual kill children. And then it turns that it is a not-gun or a replica gun or a toy gun, that's got to weigh very difficult on the officers.</s>DAVID KLINGER: And, you know, some of the 80 officers that I interviewed for "Kill Zone" had been involved in circumstances where they shot people, fully believing that the suspect was armed with a deadly weapon, and it turned out it was a replica or something. And the officers had a very, very difficult time dealing with that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Joining us now is Lawrence Mower, a reporter with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He wrote a series last year on the use of deadly force by police officers. Among those he spoke with was David Klinger, who's also with us today. And he joins us now from KNPR in Las Vegas. So nice to have you on the program with us today.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Thank you for having me, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I was interested, just given what David Klinger was just saying, yes, I think we hear about it often when police officers fire their weapons with tragic results. We don't hear about it when they don't.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: No, that's true, absolutely. And these are still relatively rare incidents. Here we found that, you know, metro police, Las Vegas Metro Police, the big agency here, shoots their - you know, fires their weapons at people around 17 times a year, and they are relatively rare incidents.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And relatively rare, nevertheless, it seems that at least there, the investigations that follow have - is it fair to say universally cleared officers?</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Almost. What we found was that: One, there was a lot of shootings here. Also that the department was very reluctant to learn from its incidents, learn from its shootings, and that they were reluctant to hold officers accountable for them. And really, the review process in place was fairly lax.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: In the last decade, Metro's review board had cleared 99 percent of officers who were involved in any kind of incident, serious incident like a shooting. And - but also, the criminal review process was fairly lax, also.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Reluctant to do that because they feared for morale, because why?</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Well, it's interesting. The board that they had set up here - and they still do have set up here - was dominated by citizens. And what we found kind of interesting is we talked to the citizens, and they were very much, very pro-police. They had difficulty holding officers accountable for these incidents.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Oftentimes, it was the officers on the board who were harder on their own officers than the citizens were. But, you know, what you've heard over time from police also is that, well, we don't want to second-guess another officer's decision to use deadly force because these incidents are so rare, and they're not as clear cut, often, as, you know, an officer beating someone up. Well, many officers would not justify that. So - go ahead.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I was just going to ask David Klinger to come in and say, is that - is the experience there in Las Vegas, do you think, replicated across much of the country?</s>DAVID KLINGER: In terms of the sense that most shootings are held to be justified?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yes.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Yeah, absolutely. And a dispassionate observer who looked at the investigative case files of the vast majority of shootings would have to come to the same conclusion. There are some bad shootings. There's no doubt about that. And when I say a bad shooting, I mean one where a police officer didn't make either a good-faith mistake or some other thing that would come up that we would say, gosh, you know, we don't like this. We don't - we wish it hadn't happened, but it's perfectly justified.</s>DAVID KLINGER: There's a term of art called awful, but lawful. So sometimes officers are involved in shootings that don't really sound that good, but the law says it was an appropriate use of force. So if you take the ones where it's clear-cut justified, then some of these other ones, there's only going to be a few where an officer is clearly out of bounds.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller involved in the conversation. We want to hear from police officers today. What happened after you fired your weapon? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Jeff is on the line with us from Houston.</s>JEFF: Good afternoon.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air. Go ahead, please.</s>JEFF: Well, this happened a few years ago when I was in narcotics. On my way after home after shift, a car driving erratic early in the morning. I pulled the guy over, just, you know, to see what was going on. When I came back with his license, he fired rounds into my chest. So, of course, I fired back. He ended up - it became fatal. And after my paid time off and everything, you know, for their investigation, it was justified.</s>JEFF: But I guess it was just - it was more hard for me to get over because of the age and that it was just, you know, I had lots of friends with kids that age. And it was just - you know, to this day it's still hard.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I assume you were wearing a Kevlar vest?</s>JEFF: It went through.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It went through.</s>JEFF: I was what - I got hit with armored rounds, unfortunately. They figured out afterwards, about a month later, that he had picked them up off of a friend, that his dad was military. And that's where, apparently, he got them from. So, you know, he hadn't been in any trouble, nothing. And I was just - you know, I was going to give him a verbal warning, and (technical difficulties).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I'm afraid we're losing your cell phone, Jeff. Are you OK? Are you doing OK? I think we've lost him, and I apologize. We certainly hope Jeff is doing OK, and can understand his anguish.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is an email we have from Isaac in St. Paul, Minnesota: I'm an attorney for a police union in Minnesota. I was also living in New York City at the time of the Amadou Diallo shooting, which was widely portrayed as an example of trigger-happy cops. Now that I've worked with police for several years, I have a much better appreciation for the dangers they face and the split-second decisions they have to make.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I don't know if the Diallo shooting was justified, but I know now just how complex some of these cases really are. And David Klinger, that, of course, was the case where a man in the Bronx was thought to have a weapon and was, I think, hit 41 times.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Yeah. To make a very long story short, the officers believed that they were dealing with a criminal who was pulling a gun on them, and it turned out that he was pulling a wallet. And that's one of those ones of, you know, lawful but awful, where the officer misperceives - I've written about it, and Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" gives a very, very good, detailed account of how it is that his officers came to perceive it the way that they did.</s>DAVID KLINGER: And anybody that's interested in learning about that particular case would do well to take a look at that chapter in the book "Blink."</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about what happens when police use deadly force. If you're a cop, call and tell us what happened after you discharged your weapon. 800-989-8255. You can send us an email: talk@npr.org. We'll have more in just a minute. 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. When police officers respond to a call, enter the home of a suspect or even make a routine traffic stop, they never know what might happen next. In New Orleans this morning, police investigating a shooting inside a house tracked a vehicle they believed contained the gunman. New Orleans PD says one of those in that vehicle opened fire on police; that person was then shot and killed by police officers. An investigation will inevitably follow.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So police officers, tell us, what happened after you fired your weapon? 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. Our guest is David Klinger, a former police officer with the Los Angeles and Redmond, Washington, police departments; and Lawrence Mower, a reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal is also with us. Let's see if we can get another caller on the line. This is Burt(ph), Burt with us from Reno.</s>BURT: Hi, how are you?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Good, thanks.</s>BURT: Thanks for taking my call.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, please.</s>BURT: I have a different perspective on this entire scenario in that I was a supervisor here in Nevada for the Nevada Highway Patrol, and I do believe firmly that training the officers that work on that department will keep the number of shootings to a minimum, and they know when they can fire their weapon and when they should not fire that weapon.</s>BURT: And I'm not saying for one moment that officers should be - should jeopardize their safety by not firing when necessary; however, there are instances where by law you can fire that weapon and kill someone, and it could have totally been avoided.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I understand that. In your police department, were there investigations?</s>BURT: Absolutely there were investigations.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Were you in charge of them?</s>BURT: I was in charge of some of those.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that must be very difficult to investigate your fellow officers.</s>BURT: It is difficult; however, right is right and wrong is wrong, and I might be the minority when it comes to law enforcement officers, but I believe that the citizens that you serve should be provided with highly trained professionals so that in the event of a shooting, the question as to whether that officer was justified or not could be minimized.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, thanks very much for the call, Burt, and Lawrence Mower, you wrote in your series in the Las Vegas Review-Journal several instances in which officers would have been perfectly justified, by law and by circumstance, to have opened fire, did not and proved to be right.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: No that's true, and your caller brings up a good point in that, you know, the vast majority of these things are legally justified and perhaps even morally justified, too, in the vast majority of the time. But what we found is that some of them can be avoided by tactics and really looking at, OK, did the officer place themselves in a position of danger.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: For example, we had a case here where officers trying to apprehend a - a person who was fencing stolen goods, they caught him coming out of the store. The person, the suspect jumped into the passenger side of a car. One officer went to the passenger side of the car to try to pull him out. Well, the driver took off.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: And now the officer is in a situation where they're being dragged, and the officer is in a situation where either you shoot to kill the driver and stop the car, or you, you know, let go and be crushed by the car potentially.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So difficult choice.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Absolutely, and that's a case where, you know, the officer was certainly legally justified and had no other option in that situation, but nevertheless, it could have been avoided, and other departments that have policies that say don't reach into running or - basically don't reach into vehicles.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Well, Las Vegas police don't have that kind of policy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There was also a finding that you made that suggested that police officers involved in shootings, if they're involved in several shootings, well, yes, circumstances can mount, and someone can be unfortunate, but nevertheless, it does seem to form a pattern.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Well, sometimes. What we found was that - I mean, some officers in a lot of shootings are in, for example, the SWAT team, where you might be more prone to have a lot of shootings, and you can't really make a moral judgment based on that or, you know, a personnel judgment.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: But what we did find is patterns of officers being involved in multiple shootings, sometimes they had other disciplinary problems, and some of their shootings were, you know, problematic to say the least. One cop we looked at was involved in three fatal shootings in five years, and in each of those shootings, the person who was shot was a vagrant. There were no witnesses to any of the shootings, and the officer's judgment was highly questionable by people inside and outside the department.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: And yet the officer was allowed to stay on for a number of years until he was fired for disciplinary reasons.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Klinger, is it widespread that, as Lawrence Mower says, in the case in Las Vegas, that police departments are reluctant to try to draw lessons from their shooting incidents?</s>DAVID KLINGER: What I found is that most of the agencies around the country are actually quite interested in drawing lessons. And for example my old agency Los Angeles, one of the things that they have been doing for many years is having essentially a tactical review of the incident to say what could the officers have done differently, if anything, in order to either reduce the likelihood of a shooting or to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage, you know, a citizen being damaged, injured, so on and so forth.</s>DAVID KLINGER: In fact, I'm presently involved in a project with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, another branch of the United States Department of Justice, where I'm interviewing officers around the country and asking them what are the lessons that we can learn from your incident. And it's going to be fed back into American law enforcement, and this is at the highest levels of USDOJ.</s>DAVID KLINGER: And so my experience is that most agencies really do want to learn from what goes on in shootings and in fact, as I indicated, that's something that the federal government is involved in currently.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get another caller in. This is John(ph), John with us from Southern California.</s>JOHN: Hi, thanks for taking my call.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, please.</s>JOHN: One of the things that I noticed that your - I'm sorry, the person you're interviewing isn't talking about is the way that police officers are treated after the shooting. It almost feels adversarial in nature. I was involved in a shooting myself a few hours off a training. It was covered by national news, and it was a huge incident.</s>JOHN: And, I mean, there was no doubt that I was in the right, but still the fact they take your gun away while you're on-scene, they put you in a patrol car, they separate the different people in the shootings. There's a way that they do it, but it just really feels like they're treating me like a criminal, and I'd like them to speak a little bit about that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Klinger?</s>DAVID KLINGER: Well, that's unacceptable. One of the things that I do and other people around the country do is train agencies about post-shooting protocols. And to disarm an officer at the scene, there's no reason for that. There's a time and a place to get the officer's weapon for evidence collection, and that's back at the station once the officer is safe, once the scene is secured, so on and so forth.</s>DAVID KLINGER: There's got to be some sort of an adversarial process because there's always the question in our democracy whether an officer used deadly force appropriately. So there has to be a careful investigation of the facts. However, it doesn't have to be adversarial in the sense of trying to make it look as if the officer did something wrong.</s>DAVID KLINGER: When I say adversarial, the district attorney has to take a look at it, make sure everything's squared away. But I agree with the officer: If an agency is not treating the officer with the respect that they deserve - because after all, what happens is they trained the officer, they hired the officer, they gave him a gun, they said go out, and under these circumstances deadly force is appropriate - unless and until there is some evidence that the officer did something wrong, the officer shouldn't be treated like a criminal suspect.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: John, how long ago was this?</s>JOHN: It was back in 2005.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Do you think procedures have changed?</s>JOHN: You know, after that happened, I'm sure they probably did. I've talked to other departments, and they also said the same thing that Mr. Klinger said. It's just I'm not sure how often that happens. That was just my take on the incident and what happened with me and with the other officers. There were actually five officers involved. Thirty-eight shots were fired, and eight of them hit him, and he still lived.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And - the person you were firing at?</s>JOHN: Yeah, the person still lived. They had to put him in a coma for a few days, and then he came back out of the coma. He had double the amount of crystal meth that you would expect on a suspect.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And were all the officers OK?</s>JOHN: All of them were fine.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how long did this process take, all told?</s>JOHN: Let's see, it started about 5 o'clock in the morning. We were probably done by around noon or 1 o'clock.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And then how long did the investigation take? How long was it before you got your weapon back?</s>JOHN: Well, they give you on the (unintelligible), administrative leave for a week, and then you come back. You have to go see a psych first to make sure that you're OK, and that was pretty much it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And have you had any difficulties?</s>JOHN: No, no problems at all. Yeah, I mean, I think just the main thing, I just felt the way that they treated me at the time, I'm glad that Mr. Klinger spoke to that, that that wasn't correct.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, John, thanks very much, appreciate the phone call.</s>JOHN: All right, thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Lawrence Mower, that procedure he described, a week on the beach, administrative leave, is that what they do in Las Vegas, too?</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: That's kind of the norm nationwide is that you give officers time to see a psychologist and really make sure you're OK because it's interesting, one of your earlier callers kind of talked about this was I talked to a cop who was involved in a - in combat in Vietnam, and he was later involved in police shootings. And he said that, you know, in combat it's - not that it's not traumatic, but that you don't - you often don't know who you're shooting. You don't know anything about that person.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: But if you're a police officer, you're going to find out everything there is to know about that guy through the, well, usually through the press and through your own - your department's investigation. You'll know that that person had a family, had loved ones, was loved by someone and it's - in my interviews with officers they - a lot of them really struggled with that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, David Klinger, we find - again our experience with the military is that there is a degree of, first of all, denial and then there's a degree of soldiers and Marines unwilling to report for counseling because - well, they fear, what it's going to make them look like to their fellow soldiers and Marines, and it's also they don't want to be pulled out in the line of duty. Does the same kind of syndrome affect police officers?</s>DAVID KLINGER: I don't know that we could call it a syndrome in terms of how widespread it is, but certainly in my first study that I did for the Department of Justice, the one that led "Into the Kill Zone," several officers did mentioned that they did not feel comfortable talking to anybody in the organization, particularly the police psychologist or psychiatrist because they did not believe that they would be treated well, i.e., they might be pulled off the line. Someone might think that they weren't capable of doing their jobs.</s>DAVID KLINGER: And so yes, there is, at least, for some officers sans that because it could redound negatively on them professionally that they want to keep stuff close to the vest as opposed to go in getting the help of perhaps they might need.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with David Klinger, a former police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department and the police department in Redmond, Washington. He's currently professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. He's with us by phone in Houston. His book is "Into the Kill Zone."</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Lawrence Mower is also with us, a reporter for the Las Vegas Review Journal. His series on deadly force ran in the Review-Journal last November. He's with us from the studios of the Nevada Public Radio in Las Vegas.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We also spoke earlier about the case of Amadou Diallo in New York and I misspoke. There were 41 shots fired. He was hit 19 times. A caller came in with a correction. We thank them for that. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's see if we go next to Chet(ph). And Chet's with us from Moultrie in Georgia.</s>CHET: Hi, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, Chet. You're on the air. Go ahead, please.</s>CHET: Sorry, I had you on speaker. Boy, my attitude's changed listening to everybody's call. I've been through two and they were both completely different. And I don't even know where to start. I get all emotional talking about it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, tell us about the first one.</s>CHET: Well, the first one was just something that a police officer probably would have no problem dealing with. It was an inmate trying to escape and he was also a mental patient. He grabbed another officer's gun and shot that officer in the face right in front of me, and then fired a shot at me, and then we - he ran out. And I chased him out and eventually, well, there was a lot of shooting back in forth and he was eventually shot. That was obviously one of those cut-and-dried situations.</s>CHET: The second one was not. The first one happened early when I was in my 20s. The second one happened in 2005, like the officer you just talked to a few minutes ago, late in my career. And it turns out the guy was trying to rob a Coke machine of all things, and I thought he was trying to - I thought the thing had taken his money so I came up unprepared for an aggressive personality. And when he thought that I was there to arrest him because - I didn't know it but in his vehicle which was parked there were items that he had taken from a burglary.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I see.</s>CHET: And so he assumed that I knew that. And at first he tried to stab me with a screwdriver. I used pepper spray in that situation. And then while he was under the influence of the pepper spray, I was trying to handcuff him and he managed to knock me down, get in the car. And it was one of those situations you talked about earlier. I was...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, being dragged?</s>CHET: ...I was being dragged, so I climbed up into the car in his lap, and the car was going backwards in a circle. And he managed to - I was trying to hold on to keep from the centrifugal force from pulling me out of the open door, and he — while I was doing that, he grabbed my gun and then, when I realized he had my gun, then I - we both struggled for the gun and it - I had the advantage of pressure being on top. And so that's how it ended up.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That sounds terrifying to tell you the truth. The investigation that time, how long did that take?</s>CHET: The investigation took - the first time, obviously, it was completely different. The second time, when the - in Georgia, we have the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and when they got there I actually knew a lot of the - well, I knew all the agents who were there. They arrived shortly after. And then, as a police officer, when they sit you down to interview you after a shooting, you expect that, but when they read you Miranda, you're not expecting that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I bet not. No.</s>CHET: That - I just - I didn't know what to do at that point. And so I, obviously, when you hear Miranda, you don't know what they're thinking. So I did get an attorney. Everything turned out OK. And another ironic twist in my situation that we're in south Georgia, I was a white officer, the suspect was black, and the family immediately said that racism was involved but the organization that saved me really was the NAACP.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how did that happen? We just have a few seconds left.</s>CHET: Well, real quickly, I was born and raised here. I've been in law enforcement here my whole life. And apparently, someone from the national organization came down to conduct an inquiry and when he talked with the representatives from chapters in two local communities where I had worked, they basically told him they knew me, they knew my family, they knew my work history. And I had, in 25 years, I had never had a claim of racism or excessive force and then the boy had an extensive record. So that - he got on a plane and went home. So...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Chet, thanks very much for the call. We hope you're doing OK.</s>CHET: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Appreciate that. And, David Klinger, thank you for time today.</s>DAVID KLINGER: Thank you for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Klinger, a former police officer in Los Angeles and Redmond, Washington, now at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. And our thanks to Lawrence Mower of the Las Vegas Review-Journal at Nevada Public Radio in Las Vegas. Appreciate it.</s>LAWRENCE MOWER: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: After a short break, more about the controversial video that allegedly shows four Marines desecrating corpses in Afghanistan. Stay with us I'm Neal Conan. It's THE TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Critically acclaimed DJ Rekha crafted a sound all her own with music that merges the traditional Bhangra music of South Asia with modern-day hip-hop beats. Her debut album is titled, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra." She talks with Farai Chideya about her influences and musical journey.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Hip-hop music is inescapable. It's gone from the burnt-out Bronx to Paris, Tokyo, and a host of blingy award shows. It's also found musical traction with the Southasian diaspora.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Bhangra, it blends rap beats with traditional and contemporary South Asian music. It's getting more and more popular in many circles thanks to one woman. 10 years ago, DJ Rekha started a New York club night called Basement Bhangra. Now, she's got an album of the same name. Hey, Rekha.</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): Hi, Farai. How are you?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I am doing great. So let's start out by hearing a little bit of "Snake Charmer" by Panjabi MC. He had a different track that was ultimately sampled by Jay-Z. But here's "Snake Charmer." So we are going to hear a little bit of "Snake Charmer." I just want to ask you to break it down for me. What makes typical Bhangra?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): There's nothing typical about Bhangra. But Bhangra is essentially a folk music that originally come from Punjab, an area divided by India and Pakistan. And the two most pronounced instruments in that music are the dhol, which is a drum hit on - worn around the neck, hit on by two sticks and the tumbi, which is a stringed instrument. Those are the two most distinctive elements that you hear. And it's the driving force of the drum that people are most familiar with.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Is this traditional music or contemporary or a blend?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): It's really a blend. It's hard to - the word tradition is, I think, very problematic. It comes from a tradition. The music is contemporary, and it's created today. A lot of the vocalists come from India, but the music, aside from what I'm producing, a lot of it is produced in the U.K. So it's really very much a diasporic music, and it's very current.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you've got Wyclef Jean and these other folks on your album. Does that reflect the multi-culturalism that you bring in to this music?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): Absolutely. I mean, Wyclef on that first record made a lot of sense because he is also, musically, very international and open minded. And we played him the beat, he really liked it and he felt it. And, yeah, it has a universal appeal. It - Bhangra music reaches all over the world. And the whole Indian South Asian sound as we hear in hip-hop today has also penetrated in various arenas.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What about your audience? When people go to a Basement Bhangra club night, who did they see in the room?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): They see everything. They see New York City. The first thing they see is a New York City dance party that is full of many styles, many flavors. We get people in suits, people in kicks(ph), all shades of color and that's what makes it amazing. There is a strong South Asian presence there, but we get a lot of different kinds of people. I mean it's not SOB's, which is in its 25th year, and one of the most diverse New York venues - music venues there is that plays just such a range of music, and it makes such perfect sense for us to be there. So we have a really interesting crowd.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell us a little bit about - there was a TV interview with you that - where your parents were sitting, they were saying mm-hmm, yeah, we didn't know about this whole DJ thing. How did you get started and how did your parents look at it?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): I got started with my cousins who were living in New York at the time, and we bonded over music. They had grown up in India. We didn't really know each other that well. And, you know, we kind of looked at each other from a distance and didn't have much of a bond. But we start sharing our musical interests, and without thinking about it too much, we just scraped some money together, got some gear, and started playing out.</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): And one thing led to another, and it just kept going, and we got - we were getting music from England. They ended up moving on and moving back, but I kept it going. And that's how I started. But I really started out - my first wave of gigs were though activist circles and fundraisers in New York.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So finally, what's next?</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): The album's next. I'm going to be touring and supporting the album. I'm looking into - I was teaching last semester at NYU, and it's definitely something I want to pursue more. And I…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Well, Rekha, we got to let you go, but thank you so much.</s>Ms. DJ REKHA (Music Artist, "Rekha Presents Basement Bhangra"): Thank you, Farai.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: DJ Rekha's debut album is called "Basement Bhangra." And she spoke with me from our NPR New York studios.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all hope to derail Mitt Romney's front-runner status in the South Carolina primary. Former Republican Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina joins NPR's Ken Rudin for a preview of the Palmetto State primary.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. Mitt moves up, Paul scores a solid second, Santorum sinks, and Newt gnashes. It's Wednesday and time for...</s>NEWT GINGRICH: ...pious baloney...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...edition of the Political Junkie.</s>PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: There you go again.</s>VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE: When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad: Where's the beef?</s>VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE: SEN. BARRY GOLDWATER: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.</s>VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE: SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN: Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.</s>PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.</s>SARAH PALIN: Lipstick.</s>RICK PERRY: Oops.</s>RICK PERRY: PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: But I'm the decider.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Every Wednesday Political Junkie Ken Rudin joins us to recap the week in politics. He's at New Hampshire Public Radio in Concord, which played host to both of us last weekend. And the big surprise is no surprise. Next door neighbor Mitt Romney wins big and early. Ron Paul seems set for the long haul and everybody else faces major questions as they head toward the Palmetto State.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In a few minutes we'll speak with former Representative Bob Inglis about the primary there, plus a shakeup at the White House congressional resignations in California. The Supreme Court hears arguments on Texas redistricting and we'll remember conservative gadfly Tony Blankley. Later in this hour, hour-long Junkie, New York Times columnist Bill Keller on that much-rumored, loved, hated, unlikely Obama-Clinton ticket. But first Political Junkie joins us today from Concord and we begin, as we always do, with a trivia question. Hey, Ken.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Hi, Neal. As they say up here, I came, I saw, I Concord .</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yeah, OK. Well, I thought I'd try that one. OK. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm much funnier in Washington than I am...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You are. Yeah.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yes. OK. The trivia question is, who was the last person - since we're looking ahead to South Carolina - who was the last person to win the South Carolina primary but not be his party's presidential nominee?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A state with a reputation for picking winners. The last person to win the South Carolina primary but not be his party's presidential nominee. If you think you know the answer, give us a call 800-989-8255. You can also zap us an email, talk@npr.org. Of course the winner will get a fabulous Political Junkie no-prize t-shirt.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Ken, we waited till 3:00 in the morning to get the results from Iowa. Not so much drama last night.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: No. I think NPR called it at 8:00 and 30 seconds. It was disappointing for those of us junkies who love protracted and exciting nights, but it was an interesting night nonetheless. I mean there was always the question about Mitt Romney and the expectation game. Would he win by as much as he should have won? Did his win convince people, those who had doubts after the close race in Iowa? And I think Romney got out of New Hampshire what he wanted.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: He got a convincing win. He is clearly, I mean, here we go again, but he is clearly the frontrunner. And with polls have him leading in South Carolina on January 21 and Florida January 31, there are some people who think that this nomination battle could be ended by the end of the month. And another thing we also learned about Iowa is the fact that we've seen in the past social conservatives do very, very well there, as Rick Santorum did, as Pat Robertson did in '88, as Mike Huckabee did last time. And all three did not so well in moderate-leaning New Hampshire.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, you talked about Mitt Romney re-established, if there was any doubt at all, as the frontrunner. And for the most part, in New Hampshire and last night in his victory speech, running as the presumed candidate, not against his rivals we'll hear more about that a little later in the program - but against the president.</s>MITT ROMNEY: He promised to bring people together. He promised to change the broken system in Washington. He promised to improve our nation. Those were the days of lofty promises made by a hopeful candidate. Today we're faced with a disappointing record of a failed president.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A failed president. And that's going to be a theme he's going to continue. He can afford to raise his sights, if you will, while others are going to be sniping at him.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, to be honest with you, that's been Mitt Romney's strategy from almost - from the onset, that he has almost ignored or decided to ignore his fellow Republicans and go after President Obama at every opportunity. He did that throughout most of the debates. It wasn't until they started going after him - Rick Perry was one of the beginners - where Romney not so much would respond in kind, but he would have these super-PACs that would do the dirty work on his behalf.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: We saw that in Iowa when his super-PAC virtually demolished Newt Gingrich with negative ads, and of course Newt Gingrich is going to try to return the favor in South Carolina. But for the most part, Romney's strategy's always been - the domination is not so much mine but the real target should be President Obama.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In the meantime, there is a credible second place finisher and that is Ron Paul. He, of course, called to congratulate his rival, Mitt Romney, but then took a dig at the conservative establishment.</s>RON PAUL: I wanted to thank the Union Leader for not endorsing me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Pretty enthusiastic crowd there at Ron Paul headquarters of the union leader - of course the Manchester union leader a long time a kingmaker. In New Hampshire this time around they endorsed Newt Gingrich.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, yes, you could say it's very influential and it is very influential. When it endorsed Gingrich, it was filled with anti-Romney broadsides, but if you go to the history of the Union Leader endorsement, Steve Forbes in 2000, Pat Buchanan in 1992, Pete DuPont - you remember President Pete DuPont, right?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Of course. Yes.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: In 1988. John Ashbrook against Nixon in '72. So yes, they're very influential. Yes, they are a large conservative voice in New Hampshire, but kingmakers, not always.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And anyway, Ron Paul was saying he is the challenger to the Republican establishment.</s>RON PAUL: But I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous.</s>RON PAUL: That's one thing they are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this country.</s>UNIDENTIFIED CROWD: President Paul, President Paul, President Paul...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: President Paul, the chant there at the end, and boy, you take out the new voters that Ron Paul brought to the caucuses in Iowa, and if you take out the new voters that Ron Paul brought to the primary in New Hampshire, Republican turnout is lower than it was in 2008 in both places.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: And that is surprising because everybody thought that the Republicans were on the defensive, in a funk, in 2008, on the defensive over President Bush, the war in Iraq, the faltering economy. And yet here it is, 2008, when they're supposedly on the ascendancy. They have the backing of the Tea Party, which has put new dynamism into the party, and yet the numbers aren't that much different than 2012.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But one thing about Ron Paul that we learned. First of all, of course he's not going away, nor should he go away, but we always thought that his strength would always be in the caucuses and the fact that he was organized, his supporters very fervent true-believers, but not do as well in the primary. Yesterday in New Hampshire we show that - we saw that he could be very strong in both.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We have some people on the line who think they know the answer to this week's trivia question, and that is the last person to win the South Carolina primary and not get his party's endorsement for president of the United States. 800-989-8255 if you'd like to weigh in. Email talk@npr.org. We'll start with Catherine. Catherine with us from San Antonio.</s>CATHERINE: Yes. I thought that it was going to be John McCain his first time around.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, that is true. John McCain did not win the South Carolina primary the first time around, but he was also not the nominee the first time around in 2000; that was George W. Bush.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nice try, Catherine. Let's see if we...</s>CATHERINE: It was worth an effort.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure. It's always worth the effort. Ken's wrong half - no, he's not wrong half the time. Let's see if we...</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Some, some...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Some of the time. Let's see if we go next to – this is...</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I came, I saw, I Concord.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...Scott. Scott's on the line with us from Birmingham.</s>SCOTT: Yeah. Was it Hillary Clinton?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Hillary Clinton did not win the South Carolina primary. As a matter of fact, that was a big Barack Obama victory, and Bill Clinton caused a lot of controversy back then when he said, well, you know, you know, other people have won the South Carolina primary, it's not a big deal.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But Barack Obama did win it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Scott, thanks very much for the call. Here's an email from Joe: Lyndon Baines Johnson.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Lyndon Baines Johnson is an interesting answer. There was no South Carolina primary back then.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: OK.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: In '64 or '68.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Troy's on the line from Iowa City.</s>TROY: Elizabeth Dole.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Liddy Dole.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Liddy Dole, well, she's from North Carolina but also Liddy Dole who tried for the Republican nomination in 2000 never lasted that long to make it into the primaries.</s>TROY: I think she won South Carolina.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: No, no, no. She was elected to the Senate in North Carolina but by the time the South Carolina primary happened in 2000, she was out of the race. As a matter of fact, I think she was out of the race in 1999.</s>TROY: I think it was '88.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Elizabeth Dole didn't run for president in 1988.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Troy.</s>TROY: OK.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I'm sorry.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's OK. Lisa's(ph) on the line calling from Chapel Hill.</s>LISA: Hi. I'd like to guess John Edwards from 2004.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: John Edwards is the correct answer.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ding, ding, ding.</s>LISA: Oh, yay.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I was waiting for the ding, ding, ding. Nobody – no Republican has ever – every Republican who has won the South Carolina primary has gone on to win its party's nomination but on the Democratic side John Edwards beat John Kerry in 2004 but did not get the nomination.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, congratulations, Lisa. Stay on the line. We'll collect your particulars and mail you off a Political Junkie no prize t-shirt in exchange for your promise of a digital picture of yourself thusly attired that we can post on our Wall of Shame.</s>LISA: Will do. Give my love to Ron Elving, please.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We will.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Ugh. Why? OK, I'm sorry.</s>LISA: Love your broadcast.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much. And we also have to note Kurt Fredrickson(ph) – this bulletin just handed to me – sent us an email winner from Renton, Washington. So we have two Political Junkie no prize winners this week. He had the correct answer: John Edwards. Of course, arriving at that answer a real trial. In any case, as we move ahead...</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Do we know how Kurt – do we know how Kurt feels about Ron Elving?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think probably we do but we're not going to discuss that on this program. In the meantime, there were some other candidates, of course, and we can throw out Rick Perry. He did not compete in New Hampshire. He goes right on to South Carolina. We're going to get to South Carolina in a couple of minutes. But Rick Santorum, as you mentioned, has to be very disappointed. Newt Gingrich thought he could maybe recover some of that momentum he lost. Not so much.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: True. And although neither Santorum nor Gingrich put that much money into New Hampshire, the feeling from the beginning – I think one of the reasons why New Hampshire primary didn't get as much notice as in previous cycles is a lot of people thought that Mitt Romney had it won for the longest time and only when it got close did the candidates start to appear. But nobody really competed in New Hampshire other than Romney, Paul, and Jon Huntsman.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jon Huntsman came in out in third position and this is what he had to say.</s>JON HUNTSMAN: And here we sit tonight, ladies and gentlemen, with a ticket to ride and to move on. Here we go to South Carolina. Thank you all so very much.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, he may not feel so good about that when he gets there. We're going to talk more about South Carolina and how the candidates will fare there when we come back after a short break. Of course, Political Junkie Ken Rudin will stay with us. We're also going to be talking with Bob Inglis who represented South Carolina's 4th Congressional District for 6 terms.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we'd like to hear from you as well. Those of you in South Carolina, what questions do the candidates have remaining that you have not heard answered? Give us a call 800-989-8255. Email us, 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 in Washington. It's Wednesday, Political Junkie day. Ken Rudin is with us today from the studios at New Hampshire Public Radio in Concord. And Ken, do we have a ScuttleButton winner this week?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: We actually do. We actually do and it's not Jon Huntsman. It is Brad Bergman of Apple Valley, California. The last puzzle was Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I'll explain some other time how we got to that puzzle.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But Brad Bergman is the winner.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you'd like to see this week's ScuttleButton puzzle or read Ken's column, you can go to npr.org/junkie. Mitt Romney's campaign has been crafting, and some might argue perfecting the aura of a general election candidate. By and large he's been laser focused on the president.</s>MITT ROMNEY: President Obama – President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days we've seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him.</s>MITT ROMNEY: This is such a mistake for our party...</s>MITT ROMNEY: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: It is. Yeah.</s>MITT ROMNEY: ...and for our nation. The country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In other words, an attack on me is an attack on the Republican Party as well as capitalism. Just try to take me down in South Carolina. That state votes 10 days from now on a Saturday. It's the first primary in the south with a more conservative electorate than New Hampshire for sure, and has a history, as we mentioned, of picking winners.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'd like to hear from those of you will vote in next week's contest. What questions still need to be answered by the candidates? 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Joining us by phone from New York is former representative Bob Inglis, a Republican who represented South Carolina's 4th District in Congress for 12 years.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nice to have you back on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>BOB INGLIS: Great. Thanks for the opportunity, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Mitt Romney has won the first two primaries. Will South Carolina make it three in a row?</s>BOB INGLIS: My guess is probably so, although I'm sure that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have different plans in mind for that. But I would assume that Romney is in the lead.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah, we don't see him as a natural fit for what we always hear is a more military, more conservative, more evangelical Republican electorate.</s>BOB INGLIS: Well, I think that that may be true, but on the other hand, I think people are looking for – Republicans are looking for someone who can win and so you've got somebody in Mitt Romney who's already won two contests and perhaps that sets him up with some look of inevitability. And so I think what takes over is mostly the desire to win against President Obama.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Have you endorsed anybody?</s>BOB INGLIS: Have not. I don't want to hurt him. You know, I lost a primary in 2010, so it might him if...</s>BOB INGLIS: ...if I supported him.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Be the Union Leader of South Carolina.</s>BOB INGLIS: Exactly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So avoiding being the kiss of death, if you had a druther, might you lean one way or the other without issuing an endorsement?</s>BOB INGLIS: Well, I think that what needs to happen here, as a Republican and a guy who's very committed to a pro-growth kind of free enterprise, kind of answers, is we as Republicans need to aim at solutions and realize that at some point the scapegoat hunt will not be very effective, that if we just focused on beating Obama without a message about what we would do if we were elected, I worry about that as a successful governing strategy.</s>BOB INGLIS: I think, you know, my idea of a great president, Ronald Reagan, came in with a real clear vision about what he wanted to accomplish and I hope that that's the posture that we would take to the White House if we were successful in retaking the White House, is go in with a message rather than, gee, we just weren't that guy that we just beat.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Congressman Inglis, you're talking about the general election, but before we get there, we also have, obviously, the South Carolina primary on the 21st and in the past, the history of South Carolina has always been that of a mud bath or a cesspool or whatever you want to call it. Four years ago – no, wait, I'm sorry – eight years ago in 2000, John McCain was – there were anonymous fliers that said that he had an illegitimate black child out of wedlock.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: It's rough and dirty in South Carolina and they expect that, you know, with the super PACs going on down there you're going to see more of the same come the 21st.</s>BOB INGLIS: Yeah. Unfortunately, we've developed quite a reputation, haven't we? But it is a place where some key kind of contests have been decided because it's first in the South. I surely hope we'll avoid those kind of things this time around. But the key will be – I think South Carolina is looking for electability but also sort of split with this notion that, no, we want somebody that's truly conservative and truly reflects our values.</s>BOB INGLIS: So the question is which one of those wins come Saturday. Is it the let's pick a winner, somebody that can win not just in South Carolina but elsewhere, or do we want somebody that we really would choose as somebody to enter into a business partnership with, somebody that we can actually agree with on most of their points?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And starting with the second of the debates over the past weekend, I think Mitt Romney's rivals tried to pin him with, wait a minute, we really don't agree with you on any number of points. And we're just going to play an excerpt from an ad that Newt Gingrich is running in South Carolina.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: What happened after Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney changed his position from pro-abortion to pro-life? He governed pro-abortion. Romney appointed a pro-abortion judge, expanded access to abortion pills, put Planned Parenthood on a state medical board but failed to put a pro-life group on the same board. And Romney signed government-mandated healthcare with taxpayer-funded abortions. Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney. He can't be trusted.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob Inglis, is that going to sting in South Carolina?</s>BOB INGLIS: Yeah, that's a stinging commercial for sure. Massachusetts moderate is a – let's just say that those are not positive words in South Carolina among Republicans. So – and it does remind of some of the likening people to Ted Kennedy Democrat.</s>BOB INGLIS: And so Massachusetts moderate is sort of like that at times and with that heritage of loving to hate Senator Kennedy. So, yeah, that's a pretty effective commercial. It's also effective because abortion really does matter to many in the Republican primary electorate.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken Rudin, I wanted to ask you, Newt Gingrich has just gotten an injection of $5 million from one of his supporters, a casino mogul from Nevada. He is promising to expend those sources in South Carolina. Is this going to be his last stronghold?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, it looks like it. You wonder if Newt Gingrich is now thinking whether he wants to win the nomination or he just wants payback against Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney ran those, you know, his super PACs ran the anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa and Gingrich has shown – says he's going to show no hesitation going after Romney and his tenure at Bain Capital in South Carolina, although Rick Santorum has not followed that model.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: He said, look, is our own party going to be attacking capitalism? And then a lot of people are saying what Newt Gingrich is doing is an anti-capitalist kind of strategy. Now, Congressman Inglis is talking about a moderate for Massachusetts may be dirty words in South Carolina, but that doesn't mean that the South Carolina electorate will buy it, because I always feel that South Carolina is more of an establishment state.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: If Iowa is evangelical, if New Hampshire is independent, maybe South Carolina's the one who says, look, this is the guy we need to right our party and if that's the case, then Romney should do better than expected.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is also – you mentioned Bain and this is a super PAC which supports Newt Gingrich with a 30 minute documentary about Romney's time at Bain Capital.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Their greed was only matched by their willingness to do anything to make millions in profits. Nothing was spared, nothing mattered but greed.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Bob Inglis, Mitt Romney counters, hey, Bain created 100,000 jobs, a claim has come under some scrutiny, but nevertheless, he says this is capitalism. This is the Republican Party.</s>BOB INGLIS: Yeah. It's interesting what Ken was just saying there. It really does reflect a sort of a new kind of discussion that's going on, really, it's been the last – it's certainly the case in the 2010 cycle but if you – and it is in this cycle – the conversation between the Libertarian weighing at the Republican base and the more traditional Republican base, and it's going to be very interesting to see how much Ron Paul polls in South Carolina.</s>BOB INGLIS: In more normal economic times, I think that that slice is a lot smaller. In these very difficult economic times, the Libertarian plus I'm just mad as heck and I'm not going to take it anymore kind of feeling drives those numbers higher.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And South Carolina hit more strongly by the recession than either Iowa or New Hampshire. Let's see if can get a caller in on the conversation. We want to hear from those of you in North - in South Carolina, excuse me. What questions left do you have for the candidates before you decide? Kevin's on the line, calling us there from Charleston, South Carolina.</s>KEVIN: The question I have that they're really not addressing is: What are they going to do about Social Security and Medicare? I have an older parent, and she's dependent on that for her livelihood. And, you know, they don't have a really good reputation of wanting to sustain those programs.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Bob Inglis, we've not heard a lot about this since, I guess, Newt Gingrich described the Ryan plan as rightwing social engineering.</s>BOB INGLIS: Yeah. Well, Kevin's onto something very important, and that is in order to fix a structural deficit, you have to address Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And the thing that I'm disappointed, really, in the debate we've had thus far in the Republican presidential primary is very few are willing to address that directly. We sort of have heard a lot of blame about the Obama health care package, and we sort of tie in with that anger about that. But we haven't seen many people rising to the occasion of being able to say to folks that are very upset about the Obama health care package that it's really Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that it is a long-term structural deficit.</s>BOB INGLIS: So figuring out a way do that while making sure that Kevin's relatives there that are needing Medicare and Social Security, their needs are met, that's a real challenge. And it takes some courage to address it. Thus far, we haven't seen a great deal of courage in that way.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Kevin, thanks very much for the call.</s>KEVIN: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Congressman Inglis, I wanted to ask you, you mentioned earlier you hadn't endorsed anybody. Isn't it curious that so far, Jim DeMint, the senator from South Carolina who's, well, been something of a kingmaker - or aspiring to be elsewhere - he hasn't endorsed anybody, either.</s>BOB INGLIS: Yeah. I think it is unusual. It seems, to me that the natural pick for a lot of South Carolinians who would follow in sort of Jim DeMint's kind of train would have been Rick Perry. He's a, you know, cut their pay and sent them home, so it ties in with the Tea Party thing. He's an evangelical, so he clearly ties in shared faith. But his entry was very spectacular. But then also the face plants that followed were equally spectacular. And the result is that what looked like the guy that was going to sweep South Carolina, I really thought two weeks after he announced that he was going to clearly be the one that would win in South Carolina. And now that's part of the reason this is so sort of confused, I think, is Rick Perry's rather dramatic fall here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Bob Inglis, a former congressman from South Carolina. Of course, Political Junkie Ken Rudin is with us. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. Ken?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Congressman, it seems - kind of seems that when Rick Perry announced shortly after Iowa that he was going home to Texas to reassess his candidacy, it seemed to send a signal that perhaps South Carolina was his last gasp, and any candidate who's approaching a last gasp, it's hard to support him. But going back to Newt Gingrich for one second, you were elected to Congress in 1992. You were there, the rise of the Republican majority. You watched Newt Gingrich up close. Some of them think of - some people think of him as, you know, brilliant, and some of them think of him as infuriating. What was your relationship with the speaker?</s>BOB INGLIS: Back then, I'd go to Republican conferences and try to take notes on what Newt said. It was always fascinating to hear him speak. And then you'd go out and you'd try to say it half as well as Newt had said it. He's just a fascinating fellow to listen to, an idea an hour, and most of them back then were pretty good. Maybe one in a 24-hour cycle needed to be discarded quickly, but, you know, things go on and maybe those percentages have changed around a little bit.</s>BOB INGLIS: But it used to be about 23 out of the 24-hours cycle where that 23 ideas were good. And so - and then, of course, he's had some reversals since then on - that caused people, I guess, to wonder about the stability there, but - the stability of his ideas and the stability of his commitments. So I think that will surely haunt him, but a very interesting fellow and very thoughtful, particularly back in that time when we were first taking control after 40 years of Democratic control in the House.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We just have a couple of minutes left. Do Governor Perry and former Senator Santorum have much hope of going on after South Carolina, do you think?</s>BOB INGLIS: I think it depends on how well they do. Obviously, if - and, of course, Rick Santorum has the benefit of having a brother who lives in South Carolina who's a fine fellow, who helped me in a Senate race in 1998. Dan Santorum was on Hilton Head. And so he's got some connections there, and he does have - I think he will attempt to take up the Rick Perry mantle to the extent that Rick Perry is, as I said, has had these spectacular face plants. It does raise a - that the challenge for Rick is that he's sort of at odds with Jim DeMint over earmarks, and that's becoming a front-page-news item in South Carolina at this point, because that's been such a topic for us.</s>BOB INGLIS: So that's where there are a lot of interesting crosswinds in this primary. It's a - I think Ken had it right earlier. Typically, you'd expect South Carolina to pick the business expert, but then there's - in this economic time where there's dislocation, there are people that are mad, and they might just pick somebody that expresses that anger in a way that - maybe that business guy would not.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob Inglis, thanks very much for your time today. Appreciate it.</s>BOB INGLIS: Good to talk with you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob Inglis represented South Carolina's 4th District for six terms and lost a primary to a Tea Party rival back in 2010. He joined us on the line from - on the phone from New York. When we come back, well, Political Junkie Ken Rudin will stay with us. And Bill Keller of the New York Times has a modest proposal: Mr. President, trade Joe Biden in for Hillary Clinton. He thinks it's just the ticket. Stay with us. He joins us after a quick break. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

The Marine Corps is investigating a video that purports to depict Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Many worry the incident will further enflame anti-American feelings in Afghanistan, just as the U.S. tries to engage the Taliban into peace talks. Timothy Kudo, senior membership associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

NEAL CONAN, HOST: The Marine Corps has identified at least two of the four Marines in a video that surfaced last night as Marines based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The video shows four U.S. Marines in Afghanistan in full combat gear, standing over the corpses of three men, laughing and urinating on the bodies. The audio is difficult to understand.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Here's the tough guy (unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: I think so (unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: I think yeah (unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: (Unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Look at mine. Yeah. (Unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Have a great day, buddy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: It's so (unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: (Unintelligible) may not (unintelligible).</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Just like a shower.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: Standing the whole thing...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: At one point, a man says, have a great day, buddy. Another asks, are you getting it on video? The response: Yup. The posting identifies the Marines as part of a scout sniper team from 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine regiment. That unit served in Afghanistan's Helmand province from March through September of last year. The Afghan Defense Ministry called the video shocking. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: utterly deplorable. Many worry the incident will further inflame anti-American feelings, just as the U.S. tries to bring the Taliban into peace talks.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This morning, the Pentagon promised a full investigation. We don't yet know who took the video or who released it. The Pentagon has, as we say, just identified two of the men involved, but says there's no reason to doubt the authenticity. And, of course, the YouTube video is brief. We don't know the full context. We'd like to hear from Marines today. How does this happen? 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website. That's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Captain Timothy Kudo is a Marine who left active service in March. He's a senior membership associate with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and joins us now from New York. And, Captain Kudo, nice to have you on TALK OF THE NATION today.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Thank you. I appreciate it. Good to be here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And as I understand it, the unit you were with was in that exact part of Helmand province, was relieved by this unit of Marines.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Yeah, that's correct. They relieved us in March this - of last year.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So can you tell us what the situation there was like?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: We were basically spread out over several positions. Our battalion had many, many positions over many square kilometers, and we were doing counterinsurgency. We were building up local governance, building schools, working with the locals and fighting the Taliban in the middle of all that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how frequent was combat?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: It was almost daily, I would say. IEDs were definitely daily, sometimes many, many times a day. And firefights with the enemy, depending on where we went and how bold they decided to be, were very, very common.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So it is not unusual for Marines there to expect combat on a daily basis?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I think every Marine expects combat every day.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: As you looked at this video, what was your reaction?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I was disgusted. I was disgusted as a Marine and as an American. And, you know, I think it's important to note that this is four individuals. They're completely outside of the values in the Marine Corps and everything that we taught them and believe in as - in terms of Marine Corps leadership, and how we're supposed to behave in a combat zone. And I think, frankly, that it's disappointing to myself as a Marine that they're going to be identified forever as Marines having had done this.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how does this sort of thing happen? I know you can't speak to the specifics, we don't know, but in general.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Well, I think it's a failure of leadership. I think, obviously, they went off the reservation and they acted rogue. And, you know, trying to get inside their heads is impossible because as a Marine, you're taught completely different things, and they didn't act as Marines. They acted as individuals. They acted doing something that's despicable, and it's clearly, you know, something root deep inside of them that caused them to do this thing.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It is unclear. The NCIS, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, has been asked to look into this, and obviously, we don't know what could happen to them. But from your experience, what might happen to them?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Well, they'll do an investigation. They'll find out all the details. They'll get sworn statements and physical evidence, and then there will be probably a court martial, and presumably some of these of guys will be found guilty and they'll go to jail for a while.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go to jail.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Mm-hmm. Go to the brig.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And as somebody who's - everybody has a video camera of some sort today, these days. In - do you give your men any kind of instructions about their use and what appropriate is?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Absolutely. I mean, I think as Marines, you break it down in simplest terms, and we tell them, you know, basically, don't be stupid. But they're given a lot more detailed instructions on what to photograph and what not to photograph. And dead bodies, mutilations, things like that, things that are very common in a war zone are obviously off-limits. You know, we'll take photos for investigative purposes at times, and those stay within the chain of command. They go through formal channels.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: But you're right. A lot of Marines do have video cameras and, you know, photograph these days. And I think most of them spend it on taking pictures of their buddies, taking pictures of the Afghans that they're helping. They use it in a positive way. And, you know, aside from the just absolute devastating, immoral act of urinating on these bodies, you know, the fact that they're videotaping it is completely egregious, and then would post it on YouTube. I mean, it completely sets back the war effort and puts a lot of Marines and service members that are over there right now in absolute danger.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email that we have from Scott: As a former Marine, I could more so understand the mentality of these men, for what they have to see and do on a daily basis. It's impossible for those who are not in their situation to judge their actions. We expect these men to be killers and are aghast when they're affected by what our government has them do. As is evident with the high cases of PTSD, violence changes you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I don't think it's arguable. Violence does change you. Do to circumstances, like that - I mean, can you imagine any circumstances that would justify this?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: No, I don't think I can. I think that when you're in combat, especially, the lines of right and wrong become even more rigid because you do have the ability to kill people. And it's more important then, than any other time, to know what is acceptable and what is not. And there are plenty of service members who go over there, and they do struggle. It's a very challenging environment, and, you know, about 20 percent of returning service members have PTSD. But that doesn't excuse something like this.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: And despite the fact what people are going to say, that, you know, it was PTSD and all these kinds of things, it's important to note that this was - there are plenty of service members who go over there and serve honorably and do the right thing, and yet this small group of Marines decided to do something unconscionable. And so I think it's not right to say that, you know, it's something that just happens in war because it doesn't. Almost all the time, it does not happen. It's an isolated extreme case - this is.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we'd get a caller in on the conversation. We'd like to hear from Marines, 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Matthew, Matthew with us from Ann Arbor.</s>MATTHEW: Hello. I am, actually, a former U.S. Marine infantryman stationed at Camp Lejeune. And I was really shocked when I saw the video yesterday when it first broke on LiveLeak, especially since the Marine Corps is only 180,000 people strong. So you tend to recognize a few faces. It's a very difficult thing to watch, especially being a Marine, considering that the integrity is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. And the fact that the Marines, in the very beginning, looked to make sure the coast is clear is what offends me the most as a former Marine.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Looked to see if the coast was clear. You're talking about, in the video, they're looking around...</s>MATTHEW: In the very beginning, yes. They start to look and see - I believe that one of them kind of hesitates a minute and says, wait, and then tells them to go on because he notices that the coast is clear. No one was coming, so they would not be caught urinating on these bodies.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet, then, making sure the video is recorded.</s>MATTHEW: Oh, yes. They must have known the video was rolling. They all seem to look at the camera, and that's when I - like I said, I recognize a face or two. And it tends to really hit you, because you know these people personally because the Marine Corps is not that big, and you tend to run into people that you may have known for a while.</s>MATTHEW: And to see people that you really did not think would do this, do it, especially considering some of them - I, you know, would know from personal experience - are on their first combat deployment, for them to do something like that and to blame post-traumatic stress disorder or something like that would be wrong when it falls entirely on the individual Marines that were there, and their lack of integrity.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, Matthew. Appreciate it.</s>MATTHEW: No problem. Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Captain Kudo, did you recognize anybody there?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I didn't. But I will say just to kind of add on to what he's saying, you know, we spent in that same area, you know, seven months doing counterinsurgency. I lost five Marines, and yet in 39 seconds, they almost undid every single thing that we'd accomplished there. So it's like the scale of this thing is just staggering when you consider the impact that it's going to have not only on the area, but on the country as a whole.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There's a statement issued by the Taliban, that said the incident was against all international human rights and not the only example of the horrific actions the Americans have done in Afghanistan. Quote: American soldiers are trained to spread horror, and this is one of the examples.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I know, Captain Kudo, you will take exception to what that characterization says. But, as you also say, this is going to bolster their cause.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I know that the U.S. government was in talks with the Taliban, trying to resolve this. But even beyond the strategic level, you know, the guys on the ground are going to have a much harder time. There's going to be more bombs under their feet. There's going to be more bullets flying by.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: And I think it's just an incredible detriment to every single thing that we are trying to accomplish there, and it's devastating. I mean, my unit right now, is actually deploying to go back to Afghanistan and - right as this is happening. You know, I know that they're going back to a much more dangerous place, and I'm worried about, you know, what they're going to encounter over there.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And should we assume everybody in, well, not only where your unit is going, but everybody in Helmand Province is going to see this video?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I think everyone everywhere is, to be honest, the entire Middle East and all of Afghanistan. I mean, right when I left, we had just finished installing cell phone towers. And it's nothing for them to go to a local bazaar, pick up a cheap cell phone, put this video on it and go to shuras throughout the countryside and show villagers what we're doing. And obviously it's not all of us, but they're going to tell them that it's civilians that were dead, and they're going to tell them that this is common, and they're going to have the video to convince these people. So it's devastating.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Captain Timothy Kudo, who's a retired Marine. His unit was in Helmand Province just before the unit that apparently, four members of, took this video of them desecrating the bodies of three men, apparently Taliban, but we don't know that. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, coming to you from NPR News. Let's go next to Bob, and Bob's with us from Minneapolis.</s>BOB: Hello, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air. Go ahead, please.</s>BOB: My thought is that - my rank or service was in Vietnam, and I could tell you that I can - it's not that it's acceptable that this happened with these Marines, but it's somewhat understandable, only because of their - if you think about what they go through in terms of their training and their conditioning to go to Iraq, go to Afghanistan, and then being in a combat situation under the threat of death on a daily basis. And then when you have a victory, you know, there are just a certain segment of people that are going to try and celebrate it one way or the other. Not acceptable, not appropriate, but they're living in an entirely different world than the rest of us that are armchair quarterbacking, including the captain, as he sits there today. I think I can understand why some of these things happen. And I think we put these Marines in the place that they are, and we put them in the mindset to do what they did.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Armchair quarterbacking, Captain Kudo?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I mean, I think that, yes, we train these men to kill. We, in no way, ever train them to urinate on dead bodies. And, you know, we make mistakes. Like when I was over there, you know, we killed civilians by accident. Things happen in war that are terrible to both sides, but you always try to do the right thing. And you know when you're standing there, and you've taken your helmet off and the firefight's over, and you're looking around because you know you're about to do something wrong, that that's not OK. And nobody trains you to do that. So I don't know how that comes into play there.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob, thanks very much for the call.</s>BOB: OK. Thanks.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Captain Kudo, can you just give us some idea. In a unit that size - four men we see, obviously another one using the video camera, so five - what rank of Marine would have been in charge of that unit?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: It probably would have been a sergeant, probably a 22- to 25-year-old sergeant.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And they are part of a, obviously, larger unit?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: There would be a scout sniper team out of a group, a scout sniper platoon, and they would probably be attached to some of the other companies, roughly three to four companies in a battalion working. They would have been attached there to do a specific sniper mission within a different - within that area.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And scout snipers, do they get extra training?</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: They do. They're considered somewhat elite, I guess you would say. They get extra training, obviously, marksmanship and also, you know, the ability to, you know, hide themselves, the ability to call for fire, so they're a much more advanced unit. And we also select them out of the general population of Marines, looking for issues such as leadership and maturity to make sure that they can handle operating independently like that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Paul. Paul is with us from Ettrick in Wisconsin.</s>PAUL: Hello?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air, Paul.</s>PAUL: Yes. I just - I'm a Marine. I'm repulsed. I remember our training. We were trained not to do these things. And if they're going to claim post-traumatic stress, they've already tarnished the Marine Corps. If they're going to claim PTS, they're doing a disservice to the countless numbers of legitimate cases. These are not Marines. They are cowards. That's my comment.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I could hear the emotion in your voice. This is, obviously, very important to you. Thanks very much for the call.</s>Email from Kathleen(ph): I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Helmand Province. I pray that he would not do something like this. But I've never been in a war nor seen my buddies blown up in front of me or maybe lost an arm or leg from a bomb. So many of these guys are over there on their second or third trip, I don't think we can know what goes through their minds. We know a lot of them come home with mental problems, and maybe these guys are suffering from PTSD while they are there. Of course, it's a terrible thing to desecrate the dead. But I'm not there, and I don't know what preceded this incident. They should be reprimanded, but nothing more. They are suffering enough.</s>Email from Kathleen(ph): And let's see if we can go next to - this is Lewis(ph), Lewis with us from Sacramento.</s>LEWIS: Yeah. Hi. I'm horrified, as a vet. I just find it just reprehensible. And my comment to everybody who's trying to understand these idiots is that if the Taliban had peed on our guys, we would not be trying to understand. We would be calling them every name in the book. We would demand that they'd be dishonorably discharged. We would demand that they'd be incarcerated. And for us to do not do that to our own people is just reprehensible. I think those guys should be dishonorably discharged. They do not deserve to be Marines, and there's no excuse, whatsoever, for what they did.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Lewis, thanks very much for the call. And, Captain Kudo, I think that's - they won't be Marines for too much longer, I don't think.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: I mean, one hopes. And I'd like to go back to what the gentleman who called before was saying. You know, there is a pretty significant portion of service members these days that are struggling with PTSD, and we're seeing that, you know, in the veteran population back here in the United States. And that's caused some legal issues at times, but nothing on the scale of this. Which is why it's important to make a distinction between, you know, coming back and struggling with, you know, transitioning back into society and the issues of war and combat and the things that you might have seen. And doing something that's completely immoral and heinous - like what occurred here - they are two very different things. And it's important for, you know, Americans to realize that they're not connected.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Captain Kudo, thanks for your time today.</s>TIMOTHY KUDO: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Timothy Kudo, a Marine who left active service in March. He's senior membership associate with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and he joined us from New York. Our guest used a phrase earlier that many people consider offensive to Native Americans, and that was not our intent.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tomorrow it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY with "Confessions of a Surgeon." We'll be back here on Monday. Have a great weekend everybody. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Film directing has traditionally been a boys' club, but a number of female directors and filmmakers are continuing to make their mark in the industry. Neema Barnette, an award-winning director, knows about those unique challenges. She talks with Farai Chideya about the African-American Film Marketplace, which honors the contributions of black women directors.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It can be difficult hacking it as a director in Hollywood. But when you're black and a woman, well, it ain't easy. There are people making waves, though, and others giving props where props are due.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: On Sunday, the 14th Annual African-American Film Marketplace will honor black female directors.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Emmy winner Neema Barnette will be featured. And she's with me now. Hi.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Hi.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So congratulations on that.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Oh, thank you. I feel humbled and honored to be a part of such a wonderful event. It was like going back home, you know? African-American female directors are very close. We have to be because the journey is not this crystal staircase, but decoding or recording the images are worth it all. So it was a wonderful, wonderful evening. And so many people came out, and we looked at each other's work, and it was just fabulous.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you won an Emmy as a producer for an afterschool special "To Be A Man." How did you get to that point? And what are your goals from this point forward? I know that's a broad question.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): That's right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I know you have a film coming up. But just give us a little sketch of how, at least, you got to the point of winning that Emmy.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Well, I won the Emmy - I have two directing Emmys. But the Emmy you're talking about I got for producing. I started in New York. I'm from Harlem - came from Harlem to Hollywood. I started in New York in an organization called Third World Cinema, which was originally started by Ossie Davis and a gentleman by the name of Cliff Frazier. And Julie Dash came out of their Preston homes. Spike was close, but he was downtown. And we had a lot of - Bill Duke, you know, a lot of directors started there.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And so while I was there working and learning about film, Cliff Frazier was directing an afterschool special - his first directing effort. So he got all of us together, and I was the producer, and I didn't know anything about producing. But I did what I could. And it wound - well, I wound up winning an Emmy for it, and it was very exciting. That was my first.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Which do you like better, producing or directing?</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): I hate producing.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You have to wrangle the money, wrangle everybody, huh?</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Well, you know, yeah. I'm a filmmaker. I'm a storyteller, you know? But I respect producers, and I think it's a separate art form. You know, I'd rather take a script to the lab and deal what my actors and deal with cinema and visuals and, you know, all that kind of wonderful things about storytelling.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): But I'll tell you, producing is an art. And this is - I just finished executive producing an independent - totally independent. And it was something else, you know? But we got it done in the Cannes. You know, I've been directing 25 years.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And so this was the first time I kind of called on favors. And so many people came forth. It was amazing. You know, it's amazing when you make a film that has some kind of social or political landscape behind it, how people will get behind you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell me about "Cuttin Da Mustard."</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Oh, it's my pleasure. "Cuttin Da Mustard" is a movie - I'm sure you've heard about the expression. If you can't cut the mustard, you know, get out of the kitchen or whatever. "Cuttin Da Mustard" is a movie about illiteracy.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): It's a true story of director-writer Reed McCants who grew up in New York in the Lincoln projects. He was an artist, he drew. He went to the public school system. And then he went to junior college. But he had a very deep, dark secret: He was illiterate. He graduated from community college semi-illiterate. Then he wanted to be an actor.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And at that point, after getting people to speak into the tape recorder and him memorizing and trying to, you know, cover for his inadequacy, he decided that he was going to teach himself to read. So he locked himself up in the studio apartment at 21 and taught himself to read.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And "Cuttin Da Mustard" is about a group of kids in Queens who work in banks, you know, they recently graduated from high school, they work in banks, they work downtown, The Garment District, to have various jobs, and they all have a dream to be an actor.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): They don't know about Strasberg. They don't know about the Actors Studio. So they go to this bar in Queens called Y'all Freaks(ph), and they have an acting ensemble.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And it's - "Cuttin Da Mustard" is their journey, it's a coming of ages, young adults for a rag-tag group of kids, multi-cultural, all races who kind of come together under the common ground of wanting to act and changing your life, you know?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So, Neema, what was the toughest part of putting this film together? And I know you said you called in favors.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): I did. Well, we shot it on 35 mm - I mean, the toughest part was getting it done with very little money and very little time. And that's always the case. But I've done 10 movies in 18 days. So even though I didn't direct it, you know, I know how to make it happen. After awhile, you just get used to it, unfortunately, you know? It would be nice to…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Contextualize that for a second. How long is a normal movie shoot? When you say 18 days, how does that stack up?</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Well, compared to - maybe a minimum of 35 days or 60 days, maximum 180 days or more, you know?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you're talking on a tight, tight, accelerated, accelerated schedule?</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Exactly, you know? Well, what we did was we formed a co-op of filmmakers who had a like cause. The cause was to make movies that were about something, you know, because film is - let's face it, the strongest political tool we have, and it's a mind-molding business, you know. And images are very important.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And so we got together - and this was the first film, pardon me, I have a cold, this was the film out of our co-op. So we had a group of professionals who got together. They all own a part of the film. And so it's been an interesting journey for all of us, you know? We're very proud of the film.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And, you know, I needn't tell you the percentage of adult illiteracy in this country. So it's a very important issue.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): And as I speak tomorrow night, we are opening the Harlem Film Festival, which I'm from Harlem and the filmmakers are from Harlem at the Schomburg, which I think is very fitting since it's about illiteracy. And next week, we will be at the American Black Film Festival on October 26 at 7 o'clock at the Beverly Center for anyone out there who wants to see it, you know?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you're on an aggressive schedule. It sounds like you're making moves.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): Yes, we're making moves, and we have a great cast. We have Charles Dutton, we have Sinbad, we have Keshia Knight Pulliam, we have Adrienne Bailon from "Cheetah Girls," we have Wesley Jonathan, we have Debra Wilson from Mad TV, you know, the sister who imitated Whitney Houston, Bobby, you know?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Neema, thank you so much.</s>Ms. NEEMA BARNETTE (Award-Winning Director): thank you. It was a pleasure. And goodbye to the audience.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Neema Barnette is a director, writer and producer. Her new film is called "Cuttin Da Mustard." She's one of the honorees this at 14th Annual African-American Film Marketplace. And the event continues 'til Sunday.

Incidents involving nooses are up, but what do they mean? Farai Chideya talks to two men with very different takes on the question. Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Novelist Trey Ellis is an assistant professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Film.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Incidences are up, but what do they mean? We've got two men who have very different takes on the question. Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and Trey Ellis is a novelist and screenwriter. He blogs for the Huffington Post. He's also an assistant professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Film.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Hi, gentlemen.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Hi.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): Hi. Hello.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So Trey, on the Huffington Post, you wrote about the noose as a powerful symbol different from the confederate flag. What do you mean?</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): I mean it's not just saying we don't like you. It's saying very clearly we'd like to murder you violently. It's a different symbol compared to even having a gun - brandishing a gun or a machete as something that might be construed as - for self defense. The guillotine and the noose are only used to kill someone.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And now you wrote that after hearing about the incident at Columbia University that it could be something that was aimed at you. But you also wrote it was kind of disappointing. What do you mean by that?</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): I mean, you know, as a child of the '70s, not the '60s, I missed out on this - the biggest battle that black people ever faced - the Civil Rights Movement. So for a moment there, I felt, wow, it's sort of history had caught up with me and I was going to be thrown in the middle of something and I have to see how I would react. A lot of us in my generation wondered, well, how would I ever reacted back then if I had a chance to be a freedom writer or a Panther or a follower of Malcolm X. I thought that this was my moment.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Michael, you also wrote about this Columbia University incident where a female professor had a noose on her door. You thought, I'd react differently. What would you have done?</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Look, a small noose on a professor's door led to overblown racial rhetoric and racial history onyx about hate crimes, about poison ivy, which is a play on Columbia University status as an elite university school, a protest sign that said Protest Racist Lynch Rope Provocation. The noose is a racist badge of intimidation directed at, quote, "the black community," not at this one black professor, but at the black community.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): It's a rush to judgment. It's a rush to conclusions ahead of evidence, ahead of facts. They even subjected to rope the noose, the small noose to DNA analysis, put six detectives on it in New York, led to TV appearances by the black professor.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Look, a rope small enough to be left on a door knob is the right size to be put into the trashcan. And you can call it a hanging of a noose if you want or if you must, but I regard it as trash. It's not worthy of the attention it's given in the media, in the hoopla that encourages copycats. But I want to say one more thing, we don't know who's doing these kinds of things.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): I mean, so-called the Southern Poverty Law Center spokesperson engaged in more racial rhetoric. You know, typically hideous, typically mud butt. It is not anything. We don't know who's doing these things. And if the rush to judgment and if everybody give the impression that at Columbia University, which is not a racist institution, that at Columbia University, you have mobs who were gathering to lynch blacks. That's ridiculous.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Michael, let me go back to Trey. I was - Trey, I was intrigued by your whole statement that you'd - it sounds like you kind of wanted to be thrown into the fire. And what Michael seems to be saying is it's not really fire. It might be a little warm, but it's not really fire.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): It's not even warm.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think that anyone at Columbia where I teach thought that this - that the statement of the noose represented at all the majority of the citizens, of the students at - on campus. In fact, I've been - I participated in a rally with the film division against racism. And blacks and whites, we came out in force using the incident of the noose, small as it is, as an excuse to come together and talk about what we want to do as a community, as a community of people of color, and not of color together to make the university a better place.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): You know, you always want to change the subject. You know, symbols of hate do not scare me, and it should not scare the so-called race experts who are professors at Columbia University or teaches college. What it scares me, quite frankly, is that the paternalism underway a Columbia University - blacks, whether they are students or faculty, are regarded as fragile. They're regarded as sensitive, maybe overly sensitive.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Michael…</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): And leading special protection from symbols and words. Newsflash, we don't need it.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Michael…</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): We don't.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Michael, let me take this out of the context of just Columbia University and just the university. There were nooses at workplaces including law enforcement, highway department. This is something that is sweeping across. I guess the question is - Trey, for you, and Michael, for you, same question - what is the appropriate response? Is it marches, which have sometimes been discredited? But with Jena Six, often people now think old marches are back as a form of protest that's effective. Is it education? Is it law enforcement?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Trey, first.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): Well, it's a great question because not only, you know, in my university at Columbia but at University of Maryland, at the Coast Guard Academy, these things have happened. But what's important to me, and this is where I agree with Michael, is that when your enemy acts, you have to do more than react in the way that is expected of you.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): So if I were a racist person, I would think I will hang noose to trigger a set of kneejerk kind of responses and - from my enemies. So I'd like to be smarter about our responses.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Michael? Oh, sorry (unintelligible).</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Well, my view is that if we don't - well it depends on the facts, it has to be fact based, and we respond differently. I mean, the guy from some department law (unintelligible), so it could be a Halloween prank. It could be a Halloween symbol and it could be - I don't know who leaves these nooses in the workplace or do stuff like that or why they leave them all in the university or in a campus. Or why they put the graffiti as they do. It could be a disgruntled person. It could be a sick person. It could be a social mountain misfit. It could be all kinds of people. It could be a person playing a practical joke on a friend.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Let me go back to Trey for a second now. Again, in your article, you said you wanted to meet the challenge that had been faced - previous generations had faced. What about creating a new challenge for yourself? What would you do or what will you do in the phase of modern day racism, which isn't necessarily as sharply drawn as the color one was?</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): Well, that's something you face all the time. And as a black man who grew up in a racist neighborhood as I write about in Connecticut, not overwhelmingly racist but I was certainly was chased on the street and called the N-word often.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): The - I just write about how my life is much better now. But there's still this residual fear sometimes, or residual suspicion of people. And it always goes back, I always cite, the famous Woody Allen line in "Annie Hall" when he says I didn't say to me, did you eat? I said, Jew eat. And he laughed because he's been paranoid but you don't know if maybe some of that paranoia is warranted.</s>Professor TREY ELLIS (Assistant Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Film): So it's a great question what you're asking. How much of a racist's sentiment are you bringing yourself and seeing it in other person's eyes and how much is actually there?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Trey and Michael, we're going to have to end it here.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): And I say stop reacting so hysterically to some.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right, gentlemen.</s>Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): (Unintelligible) your words.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Thanks a lot. And Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition; Trey Ellis is a novelist and screenwriter, blogs for the Huffington Post and is an assistant professor at Columbia University. He was at our New York studios and you can read their articles on nooses at our Web site, nprnewsandnotes.org.

Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics. Read Mark Hemingway's article in The Weekly Standard and Glenn Kessler's response in The Washington Post.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. Over the past few years, several news organizations established fact-checkers as impartial arbiters to gauge the accuracy of politicians. The best known is probably PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer Prize for what was then the St. Petersburg Times.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That column uses a truth-o-meter and labels the biggest howlers with a Pants on Fire. A year ago, the Washington Post inaugurated the Fact Checker, which issues one to four Pinocchios.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Now, some critics question the accuracy and purpose of the fact-checkers themselves for alleged bias or for trying to apply absolute terms like true or false to debatable claims.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you read these fact-checker columns, do you find them useful? Is so, how so? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email 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, Robert Redford joins us on the upcoming Sundance Festival and how documentaries changed change. But first: fact-checkers. Among the critics, Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard who joins us here in Studio 3A. Nice to have you.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Hey, thanks for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Also with us here in the studio, longtime political reporter Glenn Kessler, who now writes the Fact Checker in the Washington Post, and thanks very much for coming in.</s>GLENN KESSLER: You're welcome.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mark Hemingway, in a piece titled "Lies, Damned Lies and Fact Checking," you concluded that the fact-checker is less often a referee than a fan with a rooting interest. How did you arrive at that?</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Well, there's a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn't. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there's all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you're mentioned, they're often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, let's bring Glenn Kessler into the conversation. You did an annual review after your first year as a column, and it turned out - you can't speak for PolitiFact, I don't think, but Fact Checker for the Washington Post, I think the number of comments were just about even.</s>GLENN KESSLER: That's right. We - while I do this, I don't really focus on whether they're Republican or Democrat or what have you. I simply look at the statements. But at the end of the year, I did add it all up, and it was about - exactly half were Republican that - statements I vetted, half were Democratic statements.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the number of Pinocchios per party was just about the same, too.</s>GLENN KESSLER: It was just about the same, as well. I mean, in fact there was a slight higher average Pinocchio for Republicans, which I attributed to the fact that there is a Republican presidential primary going on these days, and there were a few Republican candidates that had very high Pinocchio ratings.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There have been others, including Mark Hemingway, but other stories about fact checkers in the past few weeks that have come to the conclusion that, well, among other things, it's hard to find absolute assertions of facts by politicians, at least enough to fill up the column and that inevitably you're going to wind up checking assertions and opinions and debatable points.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Well, frankly, I try not to do that. I mean, there may be instances where people will say I failed in that endeavor. There's nothing more gratifying than being confronted with a number that some politician says, like Mitt Romney, I created 100,000 jobs, and then trying to break...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Or Barack Obama, to be fair, there's the largest middle-class tax cut in history.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Right, which is another debatable fact. And so in being able to break that down and demonstrate whether that is true or not true. Now, you know, I have this gradation where you get one to four Pinocchios, and you have - or you can get the prized Geppetto checkmark, and, you know, that's a reflection of the fact that there's a gradation there.</s>GLENN KESSLER: You know, there are facts that are vaguely true but are taken out of context, or there are facts that are not very illustrative of the point you're trying to make. And so - and I actually don't make a decision as to whether or not someone is purposely lying. I mean, PolitiFact has its lie of the year. I never really speak about lies or not. I don't try to get to the motivations of people but simply say whether or not what they said was a misstatement.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mark Hemingway, checking matters of fact would seem to be a useful exercise.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Absolutely, and I don't think anybody's against checking the actual fact. It's just that it comes down to, you know, like what you mentioned before, where you have situations where, you know, you have debates that are far too nuanced to say this is, you know, correct or this is incorrect.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: And it just becomes this thing where, you know, one person's presenting an opinion, but because you have this pseudo-scientific marketing gimmick, where you're saying it's false, or you're assuming someone's intent or, you know, no disrespect to Glenn, you know, the Pinocchio itself does sort of imply lying and intent and other things like that.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: But the reality is that people like to be told that this is right and this is wrong because it simplifies things for them, and it's a very attractive thing for the reader, and it makes these things very popular.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get some of our callers involved in the conversation, 800-989-8255. Email is talk@npr.org. If you read fact-checker columns, do you find them useful? Our guests again, Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard and Glenn Kessler, who created and writes the Fact Checker column for the Washington Post. And we'll start with Brian(ph), Brian with us from Boise.</s>BRIAN: Yeah, hi, how are you?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, thank you.</s>BRIAN: Good. You know, I just wanted to say that I have always been a big reader of all the fact-checkers, and I really, really strongly support what they do when it comes to precise numbers. And my example of that is I believe it was John Cornyn who said that Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of what they did was abortions. And that was very measurably, you know, incorrect.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Cornyn, the Republican senator from Texas.</s>BRIAN: Exactly, yeah, and so that's an issue where that really stands out as a value to me. But when I started rethinking the fact-checking model was the PolitiFact Lie of the Year of 2011 about, you know, Republicans voting to end Medicare. And that was an issue where there was so much gray area, and it was so opinion-based that for them to call that the lie of the year as an absolute statement just absolutely shot their credibility with me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Glenn Kessler, I know you've written about this. It was not your lie of the year, as you say you don't use the word lie, for example, but it was among your biggest misstatements of the year.</s>GLENN KESSLER: That's right, that's right. And I think the case of the - you know, what the issue at hand was the Democrats saying that the Republicans were planning to kill Medicare, which they then illustrated with television ads that included literally tossing granny over the cliff.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: AARP ad there.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Well, I don't know if it was AARP, but it was one of those organizations. And, you know, when you get down to it, you can have an argument about whether or not what the House Republicans want to do with Medicare was a radical change or not, but it was not killing the program.</s>GLENN KESSLER: And, you know, there were different ways of financing it and different ways of delivering care, but particularly for people over the age of 55 currently, they wouldn't really see a change.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Would it have been more accurate or accurate enough to say kill Medicare as we know it?</s>GLENN KESSLER: Well, again, the word kill is really - I think that was where it gets very problematic. And, you know, so you say end Medicare as we know it, well then again, you start introducing what I call weasel words. Those are, you know, it's simplified political rhetoric, and it's not very factual.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And just a correction, it was Jon Kyl I think who said abortion services were over 90 percent, so forgive us for that. And turning to you, Mark Hemingway, is that a useful conversation to be having?</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Well, I think this PolitiFact Lie of the Year thing actually is a very useful conversation because it illustrates in a very good way where the fact-checking things can really muck up the debate.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Now, for instance I think the president's health care plans thus far have been catastrophically stupid, and I like a lot of what I see about the Ryan plan. That said, I think that PolitiFact was fairly egregious when they pronounced this the Lie of the Year.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Now the reality is that Medicare has $30 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Now, any plan that is going to address those problems is going to alter the problem significantly because Medicare as it is, is the problem.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: So yes, I mean, yes, Paul Ryan is, you know, maybe killing is too strong and unhelpful, but it's also not helpful to say that he's not changing the fundamental nature of the program either.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Well, and I agree completely with that, and in fact I also rated very poorly some of the ways that Republicans would attack Democrats over Medicare. I mean, the fact of the matter is, as you say, Medicare on its current course is not sustainable. So whatever you're going to do, you're going to have to make changes.</s>GLENN KESSLER: And so to sit there in a vacuum and say, well, this plan is going to kill Medicare or kill it as we know it when frankly no matter what we do, Medicare will have to change, and so that I think is part of thinking as why it was called Lie of the Year.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: I would also point out that just two years ago, PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was Sarah Palin referring to death panels, which refers to something, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that deals with Medicare. And they declared that the Lie of the Year.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: And, you know, personally I think it was obvious that Sarah Palin was indulging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, and, you know, I don't recall a lot of people, you know, complaining that, you know, PolitiFact was, you know, fact-checking what was, you know, an obvious bit of rhetoric back then.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: So, you know, I think it just - it goes both ways, and it's just an example of how these fact-checking organizations can wade into a debate and muck up something that involves a lot of subtle and complex details. I mean, if I want to go into, you know, how the Independent Payment Advisory Board works, you know, we're going to be here all day.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: And you decide whether that's positive or not, but...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Somebody else's show, if you will.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Madonna - and thanks very much for the call, Brian. Madonna in St. Louis: How can a regular person tell if a fact-checking organization is partisan? They don't publish their financial statements, so we can't see where the money is coming from. Glenn Kessler, you work for the Washington Post.</s>GLENN KESSLER: That's right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And PolitiFact, as far as I know, is a creature, to use a pejorative word, of what used to be the St. Pete's Times, now the Tampa Times.</s>GLENN KESSLER: That's right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I think that's true of most of these organizations.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Right, I mean, you do have organizations on the left and the right, since there's Media Matters, which kind of fact-checks things from the left.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But other people do it from the right, as well.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Exactly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so in that case, they're openly partisan, but we're talking about the people who describe themselves as nonpartisan fact-checkers. If you read them, do you find their criticisms and comments and useful? How many Pinocchios does it take? 800-989-8255. Email us, 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. The campaign season keeps fact-checkers busy, poring over political ads, digging into the soundbites from countless debates and combing through official biographies for inaccuracy and the truth stretched.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All the while, they've got to keep their eyes on the ball, the sitting president who should not get a pass just because his re-nomination is virtually locked up. Critics argue that fact-checkers hide behind a mantle of impartiality while handing out judgments that are anything but impartial.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you read the fact-checker columns like those in the Washington Post or on PolitiFact, do you find them useful? 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: Glenn Kessler is with us, he writes the Fact Checker for the Washington Post. Also Mark Hemingway is here in Studio 3A. He took the trade to task in a piece he wrote for the Weekly Standard. Let's get another caller on the line, and this is Jim(ph), and Jim's calling from Fort Collins in Colorado.</s>JIM: Yes, hi, thank you for taking my call.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure.</s>JIM: Prior to the break, I kind of felt like we were getting into too much of an issue with regard to one agency trying to justify their position with regard to what is or is not a fact. And some of that's OK, but I think the bigger picture in my perspective is that given the very partisan rhetoric that we hear today, especially at this particular time of the year, along with the hyperbole from each side, that these fact-checking organizations are at least a place to go to get some kind of a reference point from which further information can be garnered in order to make a more informed decision.</s>JIM: They perform a very good service, in my opinion.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Not to get into the weeds, but might you point to an example, Tim?</s>JIM: Might I point to an example? Well, yeah, I guess some of this health care stuff is important, too. I don't remember an exact example, but the doing away with Medicare and changing Medicare so significantly, for example the Medicare Advantage program.</s>JIM: People that I have talked to say oh, well, they're trying to change Medicare so completely that we get rid of some of our - the benefits that we pay for. And if you look into that more deeply, Medicare Advantage might change but it's certainly not going to go away. And at least that's something that people don't think about too deeply, perhaps.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Jim, thanks very much for the call, appreciate it.</s>JIM: All right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: One of the criticisms, Mark Hemingway, that's been raised is that in fact fact-checkers undermine their own organizations, and elsewhere in the newspaper, aren't those reporters supposed to be checking facts, too?</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Yeah, and I think this is a big problem here is what we have is the major media outlets have so given themselves over to analysis and other things like that that what happens is that now...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: As a result of the changing news business.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Yes, as a result of the changing news business, a lot of factors, have so given themselves over to analysis that people read newspapers anymore, and they're like, well, where's the basic information that I want? So then when we get into these complex matters or disputes, along come the fact-checkers to answer these questions because it wasn't resolved in the initial, you know, reporting.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: So they turn to the fact-checkers, and then the fact-checkers are then providing analysis but then pretending it's the impartial sorting out of what's going on. And so you're creating this feedback loop of just analysis on top of analysis, and people, you know, aren't really getting through the din.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Now that said, I think that, you know, fact-checking is - can be done right. You know, Glenn is a very able political reporter, I've been reading him for years, and the best fact-checking is, you know, something that is, you know, just straight-up good reporting that with this pseudo-scientific marketing gimmick tacked on. And so it can be done right. It's just, it's frequently done very poorly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, you know, Glenn, you wrote a piece that said wait a minute, we're not supposed to be replacing journalism, we're complimentary.</s>GLENN KESSLER: That's right, I view it as a supplement, and in fact when I was a political reporter, I was often frustrated that I would be covering the day-to-day statements of the candidates and never really had an opportunity to step back and really examine what the truth was behind that statement.</s>GLENN KESSLER: And what I try to do with these columns is not only focus on a particular statement but also give resources for readers to go do their own research. I provide links to all my documentation, to all the reports that I've looked at to reach my conclusions, and so I view it as in part, you know, an education process for everyone involved.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Matt(ph), Matt with us from Pueblo, Colorado.</s>MATT: Hi.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi.</s>MATT: Thanks for taking my call. Well, I am a liberal, green Democrat, whatever, who's kind of coming around to Ron Paul's position on some things. And I don't know if it was Mr. Kessler or one of the other so-called fact-checkers wrote something kind of quibbling with his statement that America was bankrupt and gave it a mostly false or three Pinocchios or whatever.</s>MATT: And I just - and I found it totally unhelpful. It's kind of what you were talking about. You're just quibbling about definitions. I think anybody who is following the economic situation would say that we're in dire trouble, and so to say that - you know, and also Ron Paul's been very clear what he means by bankrupt.</s>MATT: So if you wanted to talk about that, you could look into exactly what he means. He's been talking about it for 30 years. But rather than deal with that, it's just this, sort of, well, bankrupt means, you know, you're in receivership and we're not, so three Pinocchios.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I don't know if that was you, Glenn.</s>GLENN KESSLER: I plead guilty.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And bankrupt, I think the argument, if you use the term bankrupt, you should say what you mean.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Exactly. I mean, that's a very strong term. And the fact of the matter is, you know, U.S. Treasury bonds are the gold standard around the world, and you can say the United States is in economic distress or is headed towards bankruptcy or something like that, but to make a flat declaration that the United States is bankrupt I think is incorrect.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Now, I happen to think that Mark disagrees on this point. I think he criticized that particular column, which, you know, I'm - I get thousands of letters every day from readers loving or hating what I write, and I actually learn a lot from some of those readers who make very thoughtful responses to what I've written, and it informs my thinking.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tell us a little bit about your process, if you would - and Matt, thanks very much for the call. Do you get assigned a quote or an attribution from an editor? Do you look at debates yourself and say oh, better check into that? Or do you get tips from readers?</s>GLENN KESSLER: No, I don't get assigned anything from an editor. It's all on my own initiative. I scan transcripts. I watch debates. I read speeches, listen to speeches whenever the president makes a speech. I get lots of tips from readers. Occasionally I will be pointed to something by - it's strange how it happens, but a Democrat might say, hey, look at what that Republican said, or a Republican might say God, can you believe what that Democrat said, and I will look into it.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: I was just going to say that I'm glad this person called on this specific example. Glenn and I were discussing this before we came into the studio because I had written a blog post talking about this specific piece. This is another example I think where fact-checking is just really not unhelpful.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: I mean, does any American not know what Ron Paul means when he says America's bankrupt? I mean, the national debt has increased $4 trillion, about 40 percent in three years. We have, you know, things like $30 trillion unfunded Medicare liabilities. We have no money.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Yes, in the specific sense, there is no extra-national legal court that we can go to and file something, you know, Chapter 11 with the United Nations or something like that. But everyone knows we're out of money, and everyone knows what Ron Paul means, and to go in and sort of nitpick that just isn't helpful to the political dialogue, I think.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Again, an exaggerated metaphor that is of use in the political discourse, a matter of opinion then.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Well, yeah, but the other thing is I never say this because, you know, I'm inherently suspicious of politicians; I think all Americans should be. But you also have to give these guys a break. I mean, they're trying to communicate to a mass audience, you know, by talking confidently, which is why they make so many mistakes, which is why they give Glenn plenty of fodder on one hand.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: But on the other hand, I mean, you know, cut them some slack. I mean, they're trying to push a message here, and every American knows what Ron Paul means when he says America's bankrupt.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Well, and I will say that I do try to make it - you asked about my process, I make a distinction between statements that are made in prepared speeches versus things that might be said off-the-cuff. I mean, I think if someone thought about it, and they decided to put a particular fact in a speech, I'm going to look at that a little more harshly than something that might have been off-the-cuff.</s>GLENN KESSLER: And a lot of times, I will simply say well, look, he obviously misspoke. It's not worth, you know, dinging him for that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Julie(ph), Julie with us from Bowling Green in Ohio.</s>JULIE: Hi, thanks for taking my call. I have a question, and I wanted to follow it up by a brief comment, and then I'll take my response off the air. The - I think it's Mr. Hemingway quoted that PolitiFact and other fact-checkers are heavily skewed towards giving Republicans lies or, you know, lie of the year or whatever.</s>JULIE: And I was wondering if that was just, like, official, or does that include pundits and commentators? Does it include everybody? And then I just wanted to also comment that I think political fact-checkers are very important because up in rural northwest Ohio, you know, most of the people that I'm around, you know, watch a lot of these commentators, and they take what they say as fact.</s>JULIE: And when Michele Bachmann makes comments like, you know, vaccines are dangerous, you know, they don't care about anything but what just came out of Michele Bachmann's mouth, and I think that...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Michele Bachmann was a candidate, is a member of Congress and is a candidate, therefore her statements are perfectly, imminently qualified for review by fact checkers, I think, by their own definition. But pundits, Glenn Kessler, would you review pundits?</s>GLENN KESSLER: You know, I don't do that. I'm just myself and an assistant. PolitiFact has a, you know, vast and growing army of fact checkers around the country because they've partnered with a number of different newspapers. They do take on pundits, you know, and maybe that's an area that's ripe for investigation. But at the moment...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But they're busy elsewhere in the middle of the day.</s>GLENN KESSLER: Right, exactly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Noreen(ph). I don't understand that the - that since - excuse me. I don't understand the idea that since PolitiFact demonstrates that Republicans lie three times as often as Democrats mean it's biased. Maybe Republicans actually do lie that much more. The idea that you have to have an even number of lies reported for Democrats and Republicans in order to be considered not biased is ridiculous. One side could lie way more than the other. And by trying to make them even, you are distorting fact. Is simple numerical balance an indication of nonpartisanship?</s>GLENN KESSLER: No. I don't look at them that way, and, as I said, I don't really keep track of, you know, how many Democrats or how many Republicans I'm looking at until, you know, at the end of the year, I count it up. My own experience from 30 years covering Washington and international diplomacy and that sort of thing is there's - both Democrats and Republicans will twist the truth as they wish if it somehow will further their aims. I mean, no one is pure as a driven snow here. And I've often joked that if I ever write an autobiography, I'm going to title it "Waiting for People to Lie to Me."</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's something reporters do a lot. Mark Hemingway?</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Why - I think I said when I even brought this up. I mean, you know, I don't think that, you know, that, you know, numerical selection is indicative of, you know, bias per se. I just think that it's highly suspicious. When it's three to one, you know, if it were 60-40, you know, whatever, yeah, sure, you know? But when it's three to one, you start getting things where, you know, you start wondering about, you know, why the selection bias.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: And then, second of all, the other issue is it's not just that they're choosing, you know, saying Republicans are lying three times more than Democrats, it's the rationales they choose when they say that they're lying. And I've gone through this a number of times where, you know, I'm banging my head against the desk because I read some rationale for some statement they've rated false when it's just clearly unfair. So it's not just that they're selecting it three to one, it's just the rationales that they use when they select it are often really shaky.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mark Hemingway is the online editor of The Weekly Standard, wrote the piece "Lies, Damned Lies, and Fact Checkers." Glenn Kessler created and writes The Fact Checker column for The Washington Post. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And Jonathan is on the line. Jonathan with us from Lebanon, in New Hampshire.</s>JONATHAN: Hi. This sort of follows up on what your guests just said. Although I do usually read the PolitiFact column that runs in our local paper, the Valley News, I usually don't find it all that helpful because, you know, just like the guest said, I sort of expect that politicians, especially in a very, you know, rough race, will exaggerate greatly and throw in a few, you know, complete just untruths. You know, I'm not totally cynical about politics. I believe, you know, I think that the political system is still, you know, working more or less, but I'm cynical enough to not trust, you know, the things that the politicians are saying. And I, you know, I tend to rely on my other reading to have some sense of whether or not what they say is true or not to begin with. So that, for me, the fact checking is only moderately useful.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It sounds like a sensible approach. Can you tell us, did you vote today?</s>JONATHAN: No. I actually - I'm calling from Lebanon, New Hampshire, but I live right across the border in Vermont.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, not eligible.</s>JONATHAN: Not eligible, exactly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Not this time around, anyway. Jonathan, thanks very much for the call. I was hoping we could get a preview...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...a sample poll, in any case. I wanted to get into why it is that - and you wrote about this, and it's been written about in the Columbia Journalism Review as well. Why it is you think that these fact checker columns have become - they're popular because people enjoy them, but why - an attempt to control the political discourse?</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: I think that, you know, when you get into situations where the PolitiFact you have, you know, things three to one, in terms of citing one party over the other...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Not just - I just have to say you were very critical of The Associated Press as well...</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: (unintelligible) The Associated Press, I mean, the other fact (unintelligible)...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I have to say less critical of Glenn but...</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: Well, part of the thing here is that it gets in this other issue where a lot of the fact checking is about narratives, like The AP has run fact checks on, for instance, people were comparing Obama's handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the Katrina disaster in the Bush administration. So they run a fact check saying this is why this comparison makes no sense. Well, I mean, come on? I mean, it's a very broad comparison. They're both in the same general area. In both cases, the public, you know, perceived that the president responded to the crisis poorly. There's all kinds of very broad things. You can see where people would be connecting the two.</s>MARK HEMINGWAY: But it's not necessarily the news organization's job to come in and say, oh, well, you know, if people are talking about this, they shouldn't talk about it, you know? And that's kind of what happens, you know, and particularly because the media is so responsible this day and age for creating those narratives in the first place.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Glenn Kessler, when you come in with terms like true or false, we're not going into lies, but degrees of truth, isn't - are those absolutes? Don't they stifle discussion?</s>GLENN KESSLER: Correct. And I don't mean - I guess, if I label something four Pinocchios, I'm saying it is...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It's pretty false.</s>GLENN KESSLER: ...it's pretty false. But there are - and that's why I have to scale. I mean - and, you know, it's - maybe it is pseudoscientific or a marketing gimmick, but it does help me actually as a writer and an evaluator to keep straight in my own mind, you know, the severity of the misstatement. If it's really just a one Pinocchio thing, or if it's something that really ranks up to three Pinocchios, it forces me to kind of think about it in a very consistent, disciplined way.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You've also mentioned it is inevitably arbitrary. You pick some things and not others. You can't get to everything.</s>GLENN KESSLER: I can't get to everything, and I obviously, you know, I would - actually, I would like to be able to give more Geppetto checkmarks out, but I find myself always being drawn to those statements that, you know, readers will say, well, what did this mean when they said that? And then I look into it and it's not correct.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Glenn Kessler, thank you very much for your time today. We appreciate it. Glenn Kessler - oh - who's the creator and writer of The Fact Checker column for The Washington Post. Mark Hemingway, appreciate your coming in. Mark Hemingway is the online editor of The Weekly Standard. Both of them joined us here in Studio 3A.

Many Haitians have left the tent camps and much of the rubble has been removed from the streets since Haiti's 2010 earthquake. Yet questions remain about the flow and efficacy of international aid to the country. USAID administrator Rajiv Shah weighs in on the challenges ahead in Haiti. Read Rajiv Shah's Op-Ed in the Miami Herald, "Haiti, 'A Country Undeniably on the Move'"

NEAL CONAN, HOST: There's definite progress in Haiti. Two years after the earthquake, the number of displaced residents in the tent towns is down by two-thirds, but that still leaves half a million people in often squalid circumstances. More than half of the 10 million tons of rubble has been removed from the streets, but only a little more than half. A less ambiguous improvement: More people have access to clean water now than before the disaster. Even so, hundreds of Haitians contract cholera every day, though a new vaccination project could reduce fatalities.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you've been to Haiti in the past year, what's the most important priority now? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Go to npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Rajiv Shah is administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. He joined us a year ago to talk about distribution of relief aid. He's joined us again today here in Studio 3A. Nice to have you back with us.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: DR. RAJIV SHAH: Thank you. It's nice to be here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what worked, and what hasn't?</s>SHAH: Well, you know, it is always important to note that on this anniversary of an incredibly tragic event, that more than 250,000 people lost their lives. And the challenge that that has posed for a country that had difficulties to begin with are really extraordinary. But in the context of that, over the last two years, we've seen real signs of hope. A number of things have worked. Partners and the Haitian government and Haitian leaders have done things differently so that today, as you point out, more people have access to clean water and safe sanitation in Port-au-Prince than the day before the earthquake.</s>SHAH: Health services are broadly available to a broad range of the population. A quarter of a million kids are now back in school and getting an effective education. And importantly, the economy is actually on the move - 5.6 percent GDP growth. And we've seen real areas of hope in areas like the banking and mobile money system, as well as in agriculture and food security, which continues to be where 60 percent of Haitians are employed. So there are challenges. This is tough. This is a long-term program of leadership for the Haitians and for their partners. But we have seen important concrete results that give us hope for the future.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I'm sure we'll have many questions about the challenges. I did want to ask you, though, about one of the projects that does seem to be succeeding. You wrote an op-ed in the Miami Herald, which we just took a look at, and there is a project to help farmers in Haiti - 60 percent of the workforce in Haiti are famers - to increase their yields, particularly of rice.</s>SHAH: Absolutely. You know, Haitians have been importing rice and buying imported grains, like rice and wheat and other products, when they have the potential to have a very vibrant economy in the agriculture sector. We've seen a specific partnership between the University of Florida and the people and farmers of Haiti result in their getting access to better technologies in areas like corn or maize, where we've seen more than 300 percent improvements in yield.</s>SHAH: In rice, they're using a system called the system of rice intensification, which allows them to use less water, less fertilizer, more safe inputs. And they're seeing a big increase, doubling or tripling of yields, and a 75 percent increase in farm incomes because of that program, which has now reached almost 10,000 farm households, and we believe will reach 125,000 over time. So those are the types of concrete results that will help Haiti develop a stronger economy, reduce poverty and reduce the kind of chronic hunger and malnutrition that has held back so many Haitian children unfairly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The United States is the largest donor to Haiti, yet there are many others, and there are commitments, I think, through 2020. But I wanted to read you this quote: "It is not realistic to expect the international community to continue to direct foreign assistance money indefinitely toward this country, as it has for so many years." The source is U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Merten. It seems some people are beginning to lose some patience.</s>SHAH: Well, Ken has been a - Ambassador Merten has been a stalwart supporter of Haiti and the Haitian people and has fought through very difficult circumstances to do that. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made clear that we will have a long-term and firm commitment to the people of Haiti. We did before the earthquake. We did in the tremendous relief effort immediately following the earthquake that saved tens of thousands of lives, and we will continue to in the future. But what is true is that we need to do things differently. We have to invest in Haitian institutions, work with Haitian partners so that they can lead their own country's future and they can develop strong government institutions, strong NGOs, strong private companies.</s>SHAH: And we're starting to see that. We saw Marriott and Digicel make an announcement about a major new hotel investment in Port-au-Prince. We see that we're working today, USAID is working with 500 Haitian organizations after a real intensive effort to go out there and meet these groups and make sure we work directly with them, so that they develop the capabilities and capacity to rebuild their own country and to do it to a higher level of excellence than had been done previously.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You talk about Haitian partners, and a lot of those are NGOs. It's fair to describe the government as having itself been shattered by the earthquake. There has been an election, the presidential election, since. There is a new president. Yet, we still read descriptions of the Haitian government as dysfunctional.</s>SHAH: Well, it's important to put this in context and understand the progress they've made. President Martelly was elected, and then there was a peaceful transition of power in a democratic circumstance with the partnership of the international community. That was an important achievement. President Martelly then went on to build his Cabinet and fill out his government, which has taken some time but is now complete. And the Haitian institutions, ministries are taking leadership of their own future.</s>SHAH: So the Ministry of Health has designed a health plan that the United States and a number of other international partners are now lining up behind in trying to help them implement. The Haitian Ministry of Education have been implementing President Martelly's commitment to get every Haitian child into schools. And we're working with them to help them set standards and meet some of the innovators in American education so that we can learn from each other as we go forward.</s>SHAH: That's the kind of leadership we want to see from our Haitian partners, and we are ready to be good partners behind their leadership because, ultimately, it's those actions that will create the conditions where aid is no longer needed in the future.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rajiv Shah is the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, joining us, again, a year anniversary of the earthquake in Haiti that devastated the capital, Port-au-Prince, and, as he mentioned, killed so many people and left millions homeless. 800-989-8255. If you've been to Haiti over the past year, what is the priority now? Or you can email us: talk@npr.org. Let's start with Mario. Mario with us from West Palm Beach in Florida.</s>MARIO: The priority would be to create structures. Haiti doesn't even have a capitol after two years after the earthquake. And there is no movement to our structural capital with modern buildings. There's no movement of that. If you go to Haiti today, it's like the earthquake just happened. But people are talking about progress that they are making, and we have a lot of people under the tents still after two years. And I just came from Haiti. I'm asking myself, where that money has gone? Because I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The presidential palace, as Mario referenced...</s>MARIO: Still a mess.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...still a mess. That's exactly right, Rajiv Shah.</s>SHAH: Well, it is. It is important to note that the Haitian leadership has put forth their own development plan. And their priorities have included education, have included energy, agriculture, rebuilding their economy and providing health and education services to their people. And they prioritized that over some other potential investments like the reconstruction of that particular palace. But it is important to note, I was in Haiti recently, and you see - visit the camps and, of course, there are still 500,000 people in that setting.</s>SHAH: In that environment, it's hard to recognize, but it's important to note that there used to be 1.5 million in that neighborhood. And we moved - in partnership with the Haitians, moved those people into appropriate housing, often by reconstructing homes that had been damaged and reconstructing them to a higher level of earthquake protection than before.</s>SHAH: In many cases, there are major new home construction sites, like the 1,500 homes that are going in in the north around this major new industrial park that's an investment with the South Korean textile manufacturer that will initially create 20,000 jobs that might, over time, create 60 or 65,000 jobs. Those are the kinds of large-scale transformational programs and results that will help Haiti become a vibrant, self-sustaining economy over time.</s>SHAH: And, you know, I applaud the Haitian government for making some tough choices in terms of setting priorities. I know this is going to be a long road ahead, but we have reason to be optimistic, and we have to be vigilant about tracking where the money is going to making - so that we make sure we deliver more of these results.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You trumpet it and for good cause. There are more people getting clean water today in Port-au-Prince than they were the day before the earthquake. I'm sure that's correct, and I'm sure that's very important. Nevertheless, cholera, a disease that is spread and caused by poor sanitation and dirty water, 300 people a day come in with new cases of cholera. This is an improvement too. That's down from 500 a day. This was brought in by the United Nations, troops. Everybody believes, and this is a cause of great resentment.</s>SHAH: Well, the cholera outbreak was an extraordinary setback to a country that was just trying to climb out and recover from a tremendous tragedy to begin with. The initial case fatality rate was more than 9 percent, and that's incredibly high, and that means we lost far more children than ever should've been the case. The United States, working through the Centers for Disease Control and other partners, really sent our best, most capable disease control experts to Haiti to help, work with them, to bring down that case - fatality rate. The global goal went - in cholera epidemics is about 1 percent. Today, that case fatality rate is 0.56 percent. And so, the goal is to really save as many lives as is possible and to try to keep cholera under control, and that has largely been achieved. We have to keep at it and keep focused at it. And, hopefully, there'll be some new tools like vaccines and other strategies that can help eliminate the problem all together in the near future.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Megan(ph), Megan with us from Stillwater, Minnesota.</s>MEGAN: Yeah. Hi. I was in Haiti recently with the Tallahassee Haiti Medical Organization, and I just think, in general, that Haitians need basic access to health care. There's such an inequity in health care there and just lack of clean water. And, I mean, we gave out 650 bars of soap in three days of (unintelligible) because the people just lack the basic necessities like that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And one of the problems there, Rajiv Shah, as you know well, has been the lack of facilities to train health care professionals in Haiti, including doctors. Has there been progress there?</s>SHAH: There has, but I'm so glad the caller mentioned the distribution of soap and efforts to really promote basic sanitation practices to prevent disease in the first place. That's an area where we've seen a lot of progress compared to pre-earthquake statistics. There's also a challenge about building a vibrant and integrated health system. You know, for too long, Haitian NGOs and international NGOs, as well-meaning as they were, would go out and try and solve one disease or provide services in one area somewhat disconnected from each other.</s>SHAH: In the reconstruction, they decided to do things differently, and the Haitian government put forth a single plan for an integrated health system. We are working with them and other partners to make sure there's a reference hospital system so that clinics can be connected to reference hospitals so that if people need a higher level of care, they can be send back to that high level of care. And we're building out the university hospital in the center of Port-au-Prince that can also serve as a training site to address some of the human resource shortages and needs.</s>SHAH: Please keep in mind, before the earthquake, the level of chronic child malnutrition was almost 50 percent in Haiti, and so that's a basic health indicator that demonstrates that conditions were very bad. I think we've seen that number come down significantly recently, and we'll expect to continue to see progress as we continue to expand vaccinations, access to basic maternal health and access to basic child health services throughout the country.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Megan, I'm sorry. I heard you trying to get back in. I think she has left us. I apologize. Anyway, as you look ahead, the question about wastage of funds, have you been able to account for all of the money that the United States has sent into Haiti and make sure that it has gone to useful causes?</s>SHAH: Well, the United States has spent in the immediate humanitarian aid, in the first few months after the earthquake, nearly $1.3 billion in an effort to do everything from health and education, protection, and you remember those urban search and rescue teams that were out there saving lives. At that point in time, the goal is to spend the money very, very quickly and save as many lives as is possible. Since then, the United States has committed an additional $1.8 billion. And the goal of the reconstruction resources are to make sure the money is spent effectively to do the extra hard work to invest in local Haitian institutions so that they can build up their own institutions. And there's an exit strategy over time for donors and partners.</s>SHAH: And in that context, people sometimes note that, well, not all the money has been spent. Only about 44 percent of that has been spent. But that's actually the - that's the consequence of taking extra measures to make sure that we're safeguarding and protecting resources, taking extra time to work with local entities and local organizations, spending the time coordinating with other donors so that things are not haphazard and uncoordinated, and then measuring concrete results, which is why we can quote to you today the yield performance in the rice project or the percentage of children that are getting vaccinated. Those things take extra time and effort, but it's worth taking that time in order to get it right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can get Maurice(ph) on the line from St. Louis. Maurice, we just have a few seconds.</s>MAURICE: Yes. Basically, I wanted to talk about how Haiti, I think, should have a plan as far as agriculture and biomass for electricity production. I'm a graduate student in sustainability, and I've actually come across some USAID documents where USAID has provided funding for creosote projects so people can use less charcoal and in turn, you know, reduce the need for charcoal in Haiti. But I think one of the main problems to - for my main point is that...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Very quickly, please.</s>MAURICE: ...basically, Haiti needs to get away from charcoal. People need to have...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I'm afraid we're going to leave it there to give Rajiv Shah a chance to respond. Get away from charcoal.</s>SHAH: Well, you're right. And at the end of the day, we have tried to prioritize science, technology and innovation. I'm so glad the question came from a graduate student because it shows that American students, American universities have so much to offer in terms of moving forward the science and technology to make new things possible. Helping to transition people to better cook stoves has been a major priority for Secretary Clinton and will help reduce health consequences. Building a mobile money system so that cell phones can be use as banks is a different way of thinking about building a financial system so that you don't have to rebuild a traditional banking structure that didn't reach as many Haitians. And there are an infinite number of examples of creative ideas that can be brought to Haiti and can emanate from Haiti to help create a better future for the Haitian people.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rajiv Shah, thanks very much for your time.</s>SHAH: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rajiv Shah, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

House Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of a children's health insurance bill, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has announced his endorsement of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. For more, Farai Chideya talks to a panel of reporters, including Marcus Mabry, international business editor of The New York Times; Ron Claiborne, news anchor for ABC News' weekend edition of Good Morning America; and Katy Reckdahl, contributing reporter to the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: House Democrats didn't get enough votes to override the president's veto of a Children's Health Insurance Program, and the question of race and intelligence hits the headlines again.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For more, we have got Marcus Mabry, the international business editor for The New York Times; Katy Reckdahl, a contributing reporter to the New Orleans Times-Picayune; and ABC correspondent Ron Claiborne. Thanks for joining us, guys.</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): Thanks for having us.</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So a quick tour on this congressional vote. Democrats voted to expand the program known as SCHIP - it's the State Children's Health Insurance Program - to 10 more children. The president vetoed that bill earlier this month on the grounds it would add people to the federal rolls who could afford private insurance. The House tried to override the veto, and they failed.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, Marcus, how is the media covering this: as a heartless president, feckless Democrats, both or neither?</s>Mr. MABREY: Well, you know, usually the media, especially the Washington Press Corps, I think, covers things as winners and losers, and I think the media mostly, for the most part, is covering this story - the "mainstream," quote, unquote, media - as an example of the continuing Democratic political impotence.</s>Mr. MABREY: They are the losers here, even though they control both houses of Congress, it's the President Bush who's emerged victorious. And that's been happening an awful a lot lately for a president who is in the depths of unpopularity, but, of course, the only people more unpopular than him is the Congress. And he's actually exploiting that so far to deaf political effect.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So, Katy, again this is something - 10 million more children could've been added to the rolls - at least potentially. Is this an issue that America cares enough about to keep it in the headlines?</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): Well, I can speak for New Orleans. People in New Orleans care about this in a very large way. We have such a high rate of uninsured people here because it's a working poor economy that depends on the tourist industry largely here in New Orleans.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): We have so many working, poor, uninsured people, and yet the state of Louisiana - its program called LACHIP, which is the version of SCHIP here - has really outdone itself in enrolling uninsured kids. It had - we have 8 percent uninsured - at least before the storm - compared to a national average of 11 percent.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): Louisiana just never out-performs any other state, and we are enrolling kids in health insurance. And that's because state officials have found it to be more effective, more cost-effective actually to enroll kids in Medicaid and get that federal money into here to pay for health care in New Orleans. The recovery of New Orleans really depends on being able to have those kids go to doctors.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Ron, this SCHIP expansion would've gotten its funds from the cigarette tax hike increase to a dollar a pack from 39 cents. What about that issue -somewhat separate and aside? Does America have the willingness to increase cigarette taxes which, according to some studies, have been shown to decrease youth smoking?</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Apparently not. It does seem strange. I think Americans have a philosophical problem, or at least many do, with tax increases, but one would think that a tax on cigarettes, with all of its destructive qualities, would have support among the American public. And by the way, I should note that when you look at polls on the SCHIP program, the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, favor in expanding that programs. So while the president has won a victory, I'm not so sure the Republicans in the long run won a victory here. My understanding is that there are quite a few Republicans in Congress who are worried about the repercussions for them and their party by not getting this passed.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Marcus.</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): I think Ron is exactly right. I think this will be in issue in 2008. And so far, the Democrats are actually threatening to send this bill, to tweak with it, and then send it, once again, to the president. And if he chooses to veto it again, they're threatening to wait until right before the 2008 presidential elections so that for the third time, which, of course, you know, I think this is again the political dilemma that Democrats find themselves in. If they were to do that then, of course, the White House would say, oh, they're playing politics.</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Exactly. The issue now for the Democrats, I would think, is do you compromise and get something passed or make an issue of this and dig in.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Just something else that connects to this in a way - you're talking about the Republicans and the Democrats: A lot of Republican lawmakers in Congress are saying that they are going to step down, end their terms, or are vulnerable. Could this add to that mix? Katy or Ron - whoever.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): Yeah, I think it could add to that mix.</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Well, that…</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): I think people really feel strongly about protecting children and children's health, and it's, I think, maybe the Republicans are misreading the way the wind is blowing here.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): But I also feel like one of the issues that people - that the Republicans and opponents of this bill - it seems like when I talk to people around here, there's a misunderstanding about Medicaid in general, and there's an exploiting of that. In Louisiana, adults don't - most adults don't qualify for traditional Medicaid, and I think that there is a confusion about that in the general public. And as a result, I think that that makes this issue hard to define for an electorate.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Ron, I actually want to ask you a different question on politics. He is the first black governor of Massachusetts, and he wants to paint the White House black, or at least help Barack Obama take over the Oval Office. That's Governor Deval Patrick endorsing Senator Obama this week. Now he was President Bill Clinton's assistant attorney general for civil rights. So is this a surprise or even a betrayal?</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): I don't know if it's a betrayal. I guess the really salient question is, is this going to make any difference? Barack Obama is - is struggling right now, and with or without Deval Patrick's endorsement, he's got a tough road ahead. I'm not sure Deval Patrick will swing many votes, maybe outside of Massachusetts and Massachusetts votes, I believe, in the first week in March. But one way or the other, I think this nomination will be settled before Massachusetts votes. And right now, it looks like Hillary Clinton.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Marcus, how important is this, if at all?</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): Well, you know, I think it's important for the atmospherics in as we see African-Americans coming out for Barack Obama from Deval Patrick to, of course, Oprah Winfrey. I think that - what the Obama campaign hopes is that it will at least increase the African-American enthusiasm for his candidacy so that black people will support him overwhelmingly in the primaries, which is what, of course, he needs. But Ron's right. And right now, it's - he's been one of the greatest disappointments so far in this long run toward the White House for '08. He is not capitalizing on his early popularity or enthusiasm.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Katy, what do you think about his long-term prospects?</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): You know, people really like Barack Obama, but I think there's an - I think there is a practical sensibility that maybe Hillary Clinton is the horse to run with in the long run here.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Another bit of news. James Watson used to be famous as the co-discoverer of the double helix DNA. He's currently notorious for his comments that black intelligence is not equal to whites. His comments in the London Sunday Times magazine set off a firestorm of controversy. Now, the 79-year-old Nobel Prize-winning scientist has apologized, claiming that his remarks were misunderstood.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Katy, is this story playing big in the U.S.? It's been huge in the U.K.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): You know, it really hasn't - as far as I can tell, I haven't - I barely heard about it. It's one of those things that you'd think would get bigger press here. It's just - that's just been a blip on the radar screen.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, Ron, Watson was due to speak at London Science Museum, but they cancelled his speech because they said he has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate. As journalists, we debate a lot of things. When you make a decision, for example, about covering a story like this, do you look at this whole question of acceptable debate, whether or not it's news or whether or not it's something that should pass?</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): well, you know, in this case, I'm not sure what the news value as news is in this gentleman's comments. I mean, they're pretty outrageous. You mentioned that he says that blacks weren't as intelligent as whites, but he went well beyond that, as I recall, and has made some pretty incendiary comments in the past. I'm not advocating censoring anyone but I'm, you know, you have to be careful when you give a platform on this subject to someone espousing these kinds of views, which are pretty far out.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, Marcus, there's been a lot of debate in this country over race and intelligence, and it's played out in different ways. I think the biggest case most recently — and it wasn't that recent - was Charles Murray in "The Bell Curve" talking about affirmative action and aptitude. These comments may be really out of the ballpark in terms of the credibility, but what about the larger debates that they inspire and undercurrents in American society in discussing these issues?</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): Well, you know, I think it's important to get them out there. I think, you know, this is not just some crackpot. This is, you know, Watson, of the famous pair Watson and Crick, and maybe it has not gotten more attention in the U.S. because most of us don't know who they are. But as you said, Farai, this is the pair that discovered the basic makeup - how DNA, what DNA is, and how it works - of all living things. This is, you know, when it comes to genetics, these guys are the biggest. They are the Einsteins of genetics. There's no one bigger.</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): And so the fact that he would say this and that - and would have these abhorrent views is important. I think it actually brings to light and brings to the fore something that, I think, many Americans, as well as Brits and people all over the world, I think, many white people, and I think, unfortunately, many African-American and other black peoples as well, this sense that they have that we are, somehow, as a people, less intelligent.</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): And this is something that I think is unspoken in our schools, in our classrooms, in our universities, and it makes a great difference, I think, in the expectations placed on black children at the earliest levels. And I think it has a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we need to talk about it. We cannot ignore this because we ignore it at our peril because this frame of mind is operating every day in our lives, and it is having a deleterious effect.</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Did Watson make these comments into context of his scientific background or his personal feelings or beliefs or conclusions he's reached?</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, he's looking, not only from a scientific background from - but also from this idea of how much have people of African descent achieved. We've only got a little time. What do you think about that, Ron?</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Well, he - and he also went on to say something to the effect of, you know, any white person who's ever employed a black person knows that there are problems with those people. I mean, this - it doesn't sound like a geneticist talking here. Again, I'm not advocating censoring this guy, but, again, these are pretty strange remarks which do not sound like they're grounded in any of his scientific background. Maybe they are in his mind.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Well, we're going to have to wrap it up there, but I'm sure that debate will continue.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Ron, Marcus, Katy, thanks so much.</s>Ms. KATY RECKDAHL (Reporter, The Times-Picayune): Thanks very much.</s>Mr. RON CLAIBORNE (Reporter, ABC News): Thank you, Farai.</s>Mr. MARCUS MABRY (International Business Editor, The New York Times): Thanks.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We've been talking to Marcus Mabry, the international business editor for the New York Times. He joined us from NPR's New York Bureau. Katy Reckdahl, a contributing reporter to the New Orleans Time Picayune joined us from Audioworks in New Orleans. And ABC correspondent Ron Claiborne - he joined us from ABC radio in New York City.

For analysis of news and events from Africa, Farai Chideya talks with Bill Fletcher, former president of TransAfrica Forum and senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. This week, they take an in-depth look at Western Sahara and Libya.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's time now for our Africa Update.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Have you heard of the Western Sahara? It's one of the least populated areas in the world. And for decades, this tiny piece of land has been at the center of a tug-of-war.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For more, we've got Bill Flether, a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and former president of the TransAfrica Forum. Hi, Bill.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Glad to be back.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. Good to see you in person.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Thank you.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And we don't hear much about Western Sahara. Most of the people there are both Arabic and Spanish? Why?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): It's that they say speak Arabic and Spanish. They are largely nomadic. And in the 1880s, Spanish - it's part of the division of Africa, grabbed this section of North Africa and held it until 1975.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And its neighbor, Morocco, is a francophone country.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Precisely. And Morocco has always laid claim to the Western Sahara, and whereas moratoria(ph) to the South gave up that territory, the Moroccans have insisted on keeping control.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What has that produce in terms of conflict?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): War. The war actually began in the early 1970s when the Spanish were still there. When the Spanish withdrew the Sahrawi people carried out a war against both the Moroccans and the Mauritanians. They signed a peace with the Mauritanians, and the Moroccans refused to give up. And, in fact, at a certain point, in 1975, King Hassan II sent 350,000 Moroccan civilians into the Western Sahara in order to settle the territory. So the war continued up until 1991 when there was a ceasefire. It's not been resolved.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, what role has the U.S. played in trying to mediate this or taking sides?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): A little bit of both. In the beginning, because Morocco was a very close Cold War ally of the United States, the United States sided with Morocco in grabbing this land. Then, in the 1990s, former Secretary of State James Baker was appointed by the United Nations to be a special envoy to try to mediate the solution to the crisis and spent several years doing this, resigned in frustration when the Moroccans kept breaking the agreements.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Most recently, however, there's been an ominous cloud, which is that the Moroccans have said that Western Sahara should be an autonomous province, and there are a growing number of people in Congress that are saying, yes, that's right.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now who's going to negotiate this, if anyone?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): This really - this needs to continue to be conducted through the United Nations. There really is no other broker that, I think, can do this, although pressure from the African Union certainly could help if it was a move against the Moroccans. The problem that we face, though, is that if there is a developing poll of opinion in - on Capitol Hill that's supporting the Moroccan position, the Moroccans may feel that they have no reason to compromise, thus, war will continue.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What stake does the U.S. have either in Morocco or the Western Sahara in that region period?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): There is economic, political and strategic: economically, phosphates which were discovered in large quantities in the early 1960s in the Western Sahara; political, Morocco has been a close ally - some would call it a puppet of the United States for years. So that's the second factor.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): The third thing has to be situated in this so-called war against terrorism where anywhere in the Arabic-speaking world, there is this complete paranoia within the United States that al-Qaida may surface. And what's happening is the Moroccans are trying to disparage the liberation forces in West Sahara, calling them terrorists.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Is there any basis for that?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): None. Polisario which is the liberation movement that leads a struggle there in Western Sahara is not at all an Islamist group. They are - they were certainly influenced by Marxism, but not at all by political Islam. And their chief national ally is Algeria. And Algeria has fought a tough war, as you know, against Islamic terrorists. So there is no basis. It's simply defamation.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, the Western Sahara has been on United Nations' list of non-self-governing territories since the '60s. What the heck does that mean?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): It means they're a colony. It means, basically, that they're a colony and that they should be achieving national self-determination. The Moroccans and their French allies, however, keep blocking this. And so when King Hassan II sent in 350,000 people, what he was hoping to do was to quite literally change the demographics of the Western Sahara so that when a referendum was held, people would vote to remain with Morocco.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): But there's an irony here. Many of those settlers are not very pleased with Morocco. And so Morocco doesn't even want to have a referendum now.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In some ways, is this parallel to China and Tibet in terms of this whole idea of repopulating an area being a political strategy?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): It's very similar to China, Tibet, to Israel and Palestine. The sending in settlers - there's a security wall that the Moroccans set up in Western Sahara that divides the country and was based off of discussions of the Moroccan leadership actually had with the Israelis. So this strategy is not unique to what Morocco has done. You're precisely right in what we see in Tibet.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, last week, the U.N. refugee agency made an urgent appeal for more funding of the camps in Western Sahara and Algeria. Why is this? Tell us about the refugee situation.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Refugee situation has been quite severe ever since the Spanish pulled out because when the Spanish pulled out and the Moroccans and Mauritanians attacked, people in mass - the indigenous people - left and started going to Algeria where they settled in refugee camps. The - and very few of them have been able to return. So you're talking about people that had been there for three decades, nearly four decades. So you have that situation.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): The second problem is, to put it bluntly, very few people care about the Western Sahara. And even in the Arab world, there is a great degree of silence about what's happening there. So the Western Sahara, even though the government - the interim government of the Saharawi people is recognized by more than 80 countries, it's not like you have a significant global movement that's insisting that something needs to be done. That - there in lies the problem. These refugees could be there until the cows come home.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, let's move on to another part of North Africa. It's a new turn of events for Libya. The nation was granted a two-year term on the Security Council starting on January 1st, and the U.S. once condemned Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism. Are you surprised by this vote?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): No. No, I wasn't surprised. It's been coming in many ways for a while. When the Libyans both decided to settle the Pan Am claim around the Lockerbie bombing and when the Libyans renounced weapons of mass destruction, it laid the basis for this turn of events. I guess the other part is that the Libyans under President Gadhafi have been very frustrated by the isolation that they found themselves in over the last 20 years, in particular, with the end of the Cold War.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): And so one, President Gadhafi has started to put more attention actually on Africa, but also there's been pressure within Libya for a greater rapprochement with the rest of the world. So I'm not surprised.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So when we talk about this, though, there are members on the Security Council that have veto power. What about Libya?</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Well, Libya is not a permanent member of the Security Council. That's the thing to keep in mind. So they are there for a - only for a limited term - although you raised a very interesting point because Libya along with many other members of the African Union have been demanding a permanent space at the Security Council table.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Bill, thank you so much.</s>Mr. BILL FLETCHER (Former President, TransAfrica Forum; Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies): Always a pleasure.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Bill Fletcher is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the former president of TransAfrica Forum. He spoke with us from NPR's Washington, D.C. headquarters.

Today he's primarily known as a smooth jazz artist, but during his early years in South Africa, Jonathan Butler was an R&B trailblazer. Farai Chideya talks with Butler about what it was like to be South African star by age 12.

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: A decade after apartheid ended, musician Jonathan Butler went back to Athlone, Cape Town with a mission, to visit his family and play a special concert in Cape Town. He grew up in the colored townships. And in South Africa, colored was distinct from black. That's where he learned to trust his talent.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): This is where the family would see who's the real singer or not. And you'd sit by the fire and when you throw your voice, everybody goes okay. I think you can make it.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Butler documents his trip back with a new CD and DVD, "Live in South Africa." Recently, Jonathan Butler got by our NPR studios with his guitar. We started out talking about how he became the first non-white person played on white South African radio.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): Well, I was 12 years old. I was - I just got signed to independent label called, Jive, which was independent back then. It was a kind of different time. You know, I mean, I was doing cabaret and I was singing in carnivals, ballet choirs.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So wait, you're 12 years old and you've - it sounds like you were already an experienced showman.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): I was - well, I grew up in the family of 12, you know, siblings who all, were out there doing concerts, cabaret shows, working in night clubs, traveling, you know? And their stories always fascinated me when they came from their travels. They talk about so many things that seem, and they'd sort of - the stuff they would bring home. And music was obviously our world, you know? And I just love that. I just wanted to sing and - but I was the kind of kid that would openly sing right off the bat.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): From the time I was 6 years old, I was in community concerts. My parents always had their own variety shows, and then I started winning competitions in carnival and stuff like that, and I started working with local bands because they love my voice and we did R&B stuff, you know, from America, we did pop stuff from U.K. A lot of Top 40, you know?</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): But my journey really began when I won a huge contest in South Africa in Cape Town. And that took me away from my parents. And I remember being sort of, pretty scared, basically, because I was a 6-year-old kid, 7-year-old kid living - now, I had my own bedroom. I, you know, I used to, my, our shanty house, our shack was pretty much - all the brothers lived in one room and all the sisters having one room and mom and dad had twin beds. And so, for me, to have my own room is pretty amazing. That kind of, you know, scared the living daylights out of me.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): And having to learn to learn with a knife and fork, and, you know, through all of that travels, and leaving my home, my parents, by the time I was 12, I got discovered by Clive Calder who now, who used to own Jive records and Ralph Simon. And they said would you want to, you know, we'd love to make a record with you. And of course, that was all I ever wanted, was to be heard on radio because Stevie Wonder was my hero in life and Michael Jackson when he was still a cute Michael Jackson because, you know, people like Billy are just adored on radio.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): So my parents said, yeah, and I made my first record. It was a song called "Please Stay," you know, it was like (unintelligible). And it was something like this. It went…</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): (Soundbite of song, "Please Stay")"</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): (Singing) If I got on my knees and pleaded with you not to go but to stay in my arms. Something like that. Will you walk out the door like you did once before? This time - like that - will be different. Please Stay.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): Something like that, you know? But I mean, it was 10 keys higher at the time. But that song was…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: A big song for a young man.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): What did I know about love? I had - knew nothing about love. You know, I was 12 years old. But the song became a national hit song. And, you know, it was the first time that I experienced in South Africa that kind of notoriety and popularity and fame. And I still lived in a shack, you know, an outhouse, and all that stuff, no electricity. You know, a lot of things did not change even though I was probably the country's most popular artist from that time.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): And I later discovered what that - the gratification so - what that, you know, what that presented, that I was the first black kid to be played on white radio. I mean, South Africa was very different. It was very different, very different then. I mean, I won the Grammy, but my picture wasn't in the paper. You know, the white lady presented me the award, kissed me, you know, the night of the award. They never showed the pictures. They just said, you know, the youngest black kid to ever win a South African Grammy.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): And so I had no idea what socially, politically what that meant, you know? And I just kept going because music was my breath, it was my life, it was my salvation. But now, we have a different kind of warfare that we have to fight, which is HIV/AIDS in South Africa. And we have to deal with poverty in South Africa.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): I do ask myself the question what is going on in government and in power. So it just tells me that it takes leadership. When you say you're going to run, you know, for president or you say you're going to run for, you're going to start a foundation, you know, to help the poor, it takes incredible amount of leadership, not just vision, because we still, you know, I mean, my heart still breaks when I get off the plane and I drive from the airport to the hotel, you know? And I see more shanties now that I've ever seen.</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): Now, having said that, I'm excited to walk down the streets a free man in South Africa. I remember as a kid, seeing white signs, black signs, colored signs all over the place, you know? The Rosa Parks stories were endless in South Africa. None of them were heard. None of them were spoken off, you know? And so, I can say, it takes incredible amount of leadership. It's going to take incredible amount of leadership.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, I know that a lot of people had been inspired by your music. And I want to end with one of your breakthrough songs, breakthrough gospel songs. Will you take us out with "Falling in love with Jesus?"</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): (Singing) Falling in love with Jesus. Falling in love with Jesus. Falling in love with Jesus was the best thing I've ever done.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: His new CD/DVD collection, and we're talking about Jonathan Butler, is called "Live in South Africa."</s>Mr. JONATHAN BUTLER (Singer): In his arms I feel protected oh. In his arms…</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's our show for today. Thank you for sharing your time with us. To listen to the show or subscribe to our podcast, visit our Web site, nprnewsandnews.org. No spaces, just nprnewsandnotes.org.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: NEWS & NOTES was created by NPR NEWS and the African-American Public Radio Consortium.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tomorrow, Bob Marley's "Exodus," the making of an iconic album.</s>FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya. This is NEWS & NOTES.

In December, Ethiopian troops seized the city of Beledweyne, in Western Somalia, from terrorist group al-Shabab. The African Union also plans to send thousands more troops into the country. Some analysts are concerned about the effect the international intervention will have on the region. Jeffrey Gettleman, East Africa bureau chief, New York Times Bronwyn Bruton, fellow in residence, Council on Foreign Relations

NEAL CONAN, HOST: Last month, Ethiopian troops re-entered Somalia to join the Kenyan army and forces of the African Union against the al-Qaida-linked terrorist group al-Shabab. Ethiopia last invaded Somalia in 2006 and withdrew three years later. Shabab's lost both territory and popular support in Somalia, but analysts describe Somalia's transitional federal government as weak, incompetent and corrupt.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So what, if anything, should the U.S. and the West do now? Jeffrey Gettleman, East Africa bureau chief of The New York Times, joins us from his home in Nairobi. Nice to have you back.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Glad to be here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And joining us here in Studio 3A is Bronwyn Bruton, a deputy director at the Atlantic Center(ph), where she focuses on East Africa policy. And thanks very much for coming in.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: Absolutely.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Gettleman, let's start with you. Ethiopia left Somalia two and a half years ago after significant casualties and very little to show for their efforts. What's different now?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Not a whole lot, actually. There's momentum in the region to get rid of Shabab, and Ethiopia seems to be piling on. The Kenyans came into Somalia a few months ago. The African Union has been making some progress in Mogadishu, the capital. So I think the Ethiopians felt that this was a good opportunity to finish the Shabab once and for all.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And if they get to the Port of Beledweyne, will they largely succeed?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, here's what a lot of us are worried about. The Shabab may be defeated as a conventional force. They may no longer be able to administer territory, but they're probably going to go underground and re-emerge as something like al-Qaida in East Africa and focus purely on terrorism and probably outside of Somalia. So they could become even more dangerous if they're vanquished on the battlefield.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's bring Bronwyn Bruton into the conversation. It's interesting to remember, the force in Somalia when the Ethiopians invaded the first time with the Islamic Courts Union, they morphed into Shabab, which, well, Shabab will say drove the Ethiopians out.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: They did, and I think that this really highlights the challenge that's facing the U.S. right now. The problem with al-Shabab is that, you know, they're the result of too much meddling by the external community, to a certain degree. The Shabab would not exist today if it hadn't been for the overassertive - brutal, in fact, efforts of the Ethiopian government, and they were backed by the U.S.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: And the risk that Jeff just pointed out as well is basically that by being too assertive now in combating the Shabab, you know, by decimating them, by forcing them to go underground, the U.S. could actually make them into a more dangerous entity than they currently are.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet by forcing them to go underground before these interventions, they had the transitional government bottled up to a couple of blocks in Mogadishu. They were controlling vast areas of territory in the midst of a famine. They were not letting resources - food, medicine - into those areas. They were also providing training grounds for other terrorists.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: It's true, and it's a really upsetting development. And it's particularly upsetting, I think, when we stop and consider the fact that the creation of al-Shabab owes so much to U.S. counter-terror policies. It puts us in a tough position now to say, well, on the one hand, we want to be helpful. On the other hand, the U.S.'s response to the Shabab's rise has not been to say, well, we need to really flood Somalia with humanitarian relief. We need to correct this imbalance that we've caused by making sure the Somali people are OK.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: On the contrary, the U.S. pretty much stopped food relief to Somalia, starting in 2009. So, you know, the best thing that the U.S. can do, I think, is to really make sure that we take care of the Somali people. The Shabab, it's easy to see them as the result of the terrorist ideology, but we have to remember 90 percent of them are children. They're the youth. That's what the Shabab means. They're under the age of 20 years old. They've been misled. You know, they're desperate kids who have no future. And that's what the Somalis see in al-Shabab.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: You know, they hate the leaders who have corrupted their kids, and it's very much in the U.S. interest to knock those leaders out. They're doing that, hopefully, carefully with these drones and by targeted attacks. But at the bottom of it, the Shabaab is the result of the fact that the Somalis are poor, desperate and futureless.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Gettleman, from your vantage point there in Nairobi, is that an accurate description of the situation with Shabaab in Somalia?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Yeah, more or less. I mean, I think a lot of people resent not just the leaders, but the rank-and-file fighters who have been terrorizing them. But I think what's important to remember is even if the Shabaab are defeated, stability in Somalia is not around the corner. There - already we're seeing the emergence of warlords or the return of warlords. There are still parts of the country that are pirate sanctuaries, and the transitional government has, you know, continually embarrassed itself in many ways.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: So this isn't the, you know, the end of Somalia's troubles if the Shabaab are defeated. And I think what is troubling is that we're not seeing a lot of talk of what to do next after the Shabaab are gone, if they are gone, and you're going to have more armies meddling in Somalia and present in Somalia than you have had for a long time right at the moment when they're trying to form a new government. So that may not go over so well either.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: More armies in addition to Kenya and Ethiopia?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Yeah, you have Ugandans there. You have Burundians there. You have the Djiboutians there, the American government. The French government have, you know, special operations in Somalia. So you have this - and the mandate of the transitional government expires in August, and at that point, everybody's going to have to sit down and figure out what to do with a government for Somalia. And at that point, you're going to have all these different players at the table who have their own local favorites and proxy forces.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: And Bronwyn has written a lot about this, but there's this belief that the only way for Somalia to be stable is it to happen from within a grassroots, local governance, bottom-up approach. And we're just not seeing that, so I'm afraid that the - a lot of the problems of famine and underdevelopment and piracy are going to continue unless there's some serious progress made in governance. And we're just - nobody's really talking about that. It's a military story right now, and that's never been the solution.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bronwyn Bruton, you wrote about outside interference from Ethiopia, yes, and supported by the United States, Kenya now and, indeed, the description of the African Union forces there by Jeffrey Gettleman in The New York Times. Outside forces also included al-Qaida.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: They did. Although back in 2006 when Ethiopia invaded Somalia, I think that the threat from al-Qaida was greatly exaggerated, and the influence that al-Qaida was exaggerated. I think that there is a consensus within expert opinion now that the Ethiopian invasion did far more harm than good and that if we could turn back the clock, I think that we would have a very different strategy playing out.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet, al-Qaida did provide funding to al-Shabaab and training to its troops.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: It did, absolutely. And, you know, that's a point of debate within the intelligence community too. There is a very a strong school of thought that said basically that Somalia is inoculated from terrorists groups, that in the past, in the 1990s, for example, al-Qaida tried to gain a foothold in Somalia. It has failed miserably because of the conditions on the ground. The Somalis don't like foreign interference. They don't trust the Arab brand of Islam. The leaders that al-Qaida tried to work with on the ground were provincial. They were not interested in the international jihad. And so, you know, al-Qaida's re-entry into Somalia in 2006, you know, it was alarming, but it was not a forgone conclusion that Somalia would become a safe haven.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Gettleman, the factor that, of course, we have to consider here is the famine and that has been so damaging in the southern and eastern parts of Somalia. With the losses, territorial losses of Shabaab, has more aid been able to be delivered to more people?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Not really because this has happened and it's happened in an environment of conflict, so the Kenyan military has taken over certain parts of Somalia from the Shabaab. The Ethiopians have done the same thing. The African Union has done same thing, but it's part of a conflict. So the aid groups are not able to access those areas very easily right now. And there's even been increased displacement and suffering in some areas. I was just in Mogadishu a few weeks ago, and I wrote a story about an increase, a sharp increase in the number of women who are being raped both by government forces and freelance militias and also by the Shabaab. So, you know, we're not seeing like a real dramatic difference on the ground. This is still kind of at the midpoint of this story.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: And I think the biggest factor with the famine is that it's been raining a lot in East Africa. This year has had very heavy, steady rains. So I don't think you're going to have the food crisis next year that you had this past year, but things are still, you know, very fluid and very messy on the ground in Somalia.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Bronwyn Bruton, as we look ahead towards if indeed the scenario we painted - nothing is certain in any conflict, but if Shabaab is fragmented and splintered and if it is reduced as a force incapable any longer of administrating territories, all these different players, how do you get them to sit and wait or encourage the development of what you were talking about, an internal solution?</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: The answer to that is not a happy one, unfortunately. When we talk about Somali development, we have to understand the illiteracy rate is so high. The ability of Somalis to do something as simple as send money from Minnesota to Mogadishu to support their family has now been crushed. And that's a big part of the economy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is a hawala system.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: The hawala system, yes. That's right. You know, it basically is a long, long haul that we're talking about, where you need to do development and education at the most basic level. It's really hard for me to take seriously the idea of nation building when you're talking about a group of people who don't have a good grasp of what democracy is, and requires so much, you know, just basic building block work that nobody really wants to do, least of all, I think, the United States.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Bronwyn Bruton, deputy director of the Atlantic Center, where she focuses on East Africa policy. Also with us, Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times East Africa bureau chief. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Jeffrey Gettleman, if that's the situation, the agencies one would naturally turn to would be the African Union, the regional power, and then from there to the United Nations.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Yeah. And it's interesting. The African Union is really stepping up in this situation. They are having more success in Somalia than they've had maybe anywhere else in Africa. And part of the reason is they're absorbing casualties. They, you know, they have suffered something like 500, 600, 700 men who've been killed. And the United States left Somalia in 1993 after 20 service members killed in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident. The U.N. is not willing to take those casualties.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: So one reason why the African Union has been successful in pacifying Mogadishu, to a large degree, is because they're the only ones that are willing to, you know, have their guys get killed day in and day out. It's an ugly war. The Shabaab guys are determined fighters. They're pretty good with the suicide bombs and asymmetrical tactics. And they're even decent street fighters when it comes to going toe-to-toe with the African Union. So like I was saying before, we're not finished here by any means.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: But what we're seeing is a momentum right now that resembles what happened in 2006, where you have all these different players working together to some degree to push out the Islamists, in this case, the Shabaab. And I think, you know, that's going to happen.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: I think they're not going to be able hold territory the way they were a few years ago. But it's not going to be the end of Somalia's misery. And it would be good to see more talk about, you know, how to begin to develop a political system that the Somalis actually believe in because so few, you know, have any faith in the transitional federal government. These people do not represent the average guy or woman out in the Somali hinterland. And that's the problem.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Bronwyn Bruton, we're talking about Somalia, yet two fairly large parts of what we used to call Somalia are no longer consider themselves to be part of Somalia. That's Somaliland and Puntland. And are we going to see more and more fragmentation? Is that part possible?</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: It is possible. And I think it's a big fear on the part of many Somalis. Opinion is divided in Somalia. The northern territory of Somaliland, for example, declared its independence 20 years ago, and they have no desire to be reunited with their colleagues in the south. But many other people want to see Somalia made whole again. And it - a big concern when you talk about the invasion of countries like Kenya and Ethiopia is that it is going to damage Somali pride. And it is actually going to give the Shabaab a boost because Somalis who are - who do not want to see parts of their territory effectively annexed by Kenya or by Ethiopia are potentially going to revolt.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Jeffrey Gettleman, let's go back to where we began. If Shabaab is shattered, you mentioned that it does have overseas branches. There was an attack by Shabaab in Uganda. Might there be more, and where does Shabaab still have capabilities outside of Somalia?</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, it's funny you bring that up. There was just a warning a couple days ago by the British Embassy in Nairobi that a terrorist attack was in the final stages of planning, and it warned people in Nairobi to stay away from malls and nightclubs and public places. The fear is the Shabaab is planning something big in Kenya. They have supporters here. There's been a number of small attacks since Kenya went into Somalia, so that's - and I live here in Nairobi and things have changed. There's checkpoints on the roads. There's people getting searched - their bags getting searched, patted down to enter a supermarket. The whole place is kind of on this uneasy war footing, which is very unusual for Kenya.</s>BRONWYN BRUTON: It steered clear of all of these conflicts in Sudan, in Somalia, in Ethiopia before in this region. So that's the big fear. They definitely have support in Kenya, but you never know. They could send somebody back to the United States. There are Americans who have died at suicide bombers for the Shabaab. So that's the big nightmare for U.S. law enforcement, is that a person who left the states, went to Somalia for training, will come back to the U.S. and pull off a big attack.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Gettleman, thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.</s>JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times East Africa bureau chief, with us today from Nairobi. Our thanks as well to Bronwyn Bruton, deputy director of the Atlantic Center, former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She joined us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tomorrow, we'll talk about police shootings. How officers are trained to evaluate potentially dangerous situations and what happens after they fire their weapons. Join us for that. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Since the 2008 presidential campaign, many Washington watchers have advocated for an Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket. New York Times columnist Bill Keller says swapping Biden for the popular secretary of state is the best way for President Obama to ensure re-election. Read Bill Keller's New York Times column, "Just the Ticket."

NEAL CONAN, HOST: While most people continue to watch Republicans duke it out, the Obama campaign is readying for a long and hard fight with the eventual nominee, whoever that may be. For years now, since before President Obama won the presidency, Washington watchers floated the idea of a Vice President Hillary Clinton. They envisioned scenarios that would allow the president to dump Vice President Joe Biden in favor of the popular secretary of state. New York Times columnist Bill Keller says it's time to do - it's just the thing to do to guarantee President Obama's re-election.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So what do you think of the Obama-Clinton super-ticket? Is it plausible; could it happen - 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: Bill Keller joins us now from a studio at the New York Times. His column "Just the Ticket" ran on Monday. Nice to have you back on the program.</s>BILL KELLER: Thanks, Neal. Nice to be here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Barack Obama - said to be a very loyal man. How could this happen?</s>BILL KELLER: Well, I don't know that it could happen. You know, what I was trying to make the case for is that - that I think it should happen. And as you say, the idea has been kicking around for, I mean, well over a year. And the idea surfaced a bit back in 2008, whether she should be on the ticket. So it's not even, you know, new this cycle.</s>BILL KELLER: I just figured that the time was right to kind of lump all the arguments together, and parse them. And I think, you know, it's a long shot, partly because, as you say, Obama is a loyal guy; partly because there has, you know, the relationship between the Obamas and the Clintons has always had some - friction would be putting it politely. And if...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Doing it the week of South Carolina would be ironic.</s>BILL KELLER: Yes, it would. You know, also, I think at this point, the White House, frankly, doesn't think that they need that kind of a move to reinforce their campaign. I imagine that - I mean, you know, in a week, when you have the Republicans taking a break from accusing Obama of being a socialist to attack Mitt Romney for being a capitalist...</s>BILL KELLER: ...you know, that's got to, you know, cause a certain amount of smiling around the Oval Office.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: They've also seen some better employment numbers - nothing to throw hats in the air over, but maybe the grimness is alleviating just a little bit. Nevertheless, what is the best argument, you think, for the Obama-Clinton ticket?</s>BILL KELLER: Well, I'll give you three. One of them is, I think it's the single best thing the Democrats can do to assure Obama's re-election. I realize that Hillary's 64 percent - or whatever they are - approval ratings would not hold up in a campaign; that's unrealistic. But they are high. She is, you know, by some counts, the most admired woman in America, certainly the most admired member of the current administration. She brings a lot to the party. She would, you know, electrify a lot of voters - turn some off, of course.</s>BILL KELLER: The Clintons come with baggage. But she would, I think, excite a lot of women, but not just a lot of women. So that's point number one. Point number two is, you know, maybe they do and maybe they don't need to do something like this to assure Obama's re-election, but there's a case to be made for running up the numbers, running up the score, which I think she would do. So there would be - it's an opportunity for the president to claim not just a victory, but a mandate, and maybe to carry some House and Senate seats with him. And then the third would be, that it would anoint her as the heir apparent in 2016, to run for president herself.</s>BILL KELLER: Assuming she has the wish and the energy to do it, she would, you know, if she ran in 2016 on her - and won, on her Inauguration Day, she would be 69 years old, the same age that Reagan was when he was inaugurated to his first term. And people - some people, anyway - seemed to think that at least the first term of Reagan was OK, you know. And if she - she pretty clearly is not going to stay on for a second term as secretary of State. So if she spends those four years sort of out of the limelight, running an NGO or something like that, other Democrats are going to come in, I think, and start campaigning. Andrew Cuomo comes to mind, and I'm sure you guys could think of others.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken certainly can. But Ken, I wonder if you had some question for Bill Keller.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yikes, where do I start? I love the New York Times.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I can't live without the New York Times, and I sound like - I must sound like one of these anti-media folks here. But to me, this is a ridiculous scenario for so many reasons. You think of Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle, vice presidents who very well may have - should have been dumped and weren't dumped. And ultimately, they didn't matter - keeping them on the ticket or not. It's really about the top of the ticket. For all the excitement about Geraldine Ferraro that, you know, Mondale still lost 49 out of 50 states. So I don't know what changing the vice president does so much.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But here's another thing about the scenario here. If Obama-Clinton ticket losses in 2012, why would Hillary Clinton be the front-runner for 2016? Because, you know, you have the Andrew Cuomos and all the Democrats waiting in the wings. And if they won, do you think, after eight years of Obama presidency, the voters are going to go for a Democrat again in 2016 - for a third term in a row? It just seems so preposterous.</s>BILL KELLER: Well, I think whether they're going to go for a Democrat in 2016 depends, to a large extent, on what happens between January 2013 and the next election. I mean, that's, you know, Hillary Clinton is not Geraldine Ferraro, and she certainly is not Spiro Agnew. What she brings to the ticket is a lot of credibility. I mean, she won the popular vote over Obama in 2008, so she comes with a track record and a lot of pent-up support. I can assure you from my email in-basket over the last few days that while there are still - you know, the Clintons, as I said, carry a lot of baggage - there is an enormous repository of admiration for her, and a sense that it's not just a symbolic move, or a token event, to have her as a woman on the ticket. It's, you know, she's somebody who has actually earned it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Julia Benjamin: Please, just do it - I think you're talking about getting a lot of those.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in. This is Rich, and Rich is with us from Placerville in California.</s>RICH: Hi, there.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, Rich.</s>RICH: I'm a former Democrat county chair in California when Obama was elected. I think this is a dumb idea. We already have trouble enough keeping the progressives in line, in this party. And those of us who supported Obama as an alternative to Clinton, many of those folks are going to abandon us. And that, to me, would be a stupid thing to do. So thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Thanks very much. Bill Keller, what Rich is suggesting, of course, you - we think of Clinton baggage, vitriolic hatred on the right. There are some - many on the left who are not happy with her, either.</s>BILL KELLER: I've heard that argument and, you know, it is true that if you draw the left to right scale, you know, Biden is further to the left on many issues than Hillary Clinton is. But, you know, I find it very hard to believe that Democrats are going to abandon the Obama ticket and vote for Mitt Romney or an alternative to Mitt Romney - even less likely. I think the excitement that Hillary would bring to the ticket would more than compensate for the defections of, you know, of people who think that she is too much of a centrist. You know, I just - you know, I just think this would be a smart thing, that it would be net plus.</s>BILL KELLER: And by the way, elections - I think will Ken agree with this - elections, presidential elections tend to be decided by the moderate independents, the people who identify as independents and of the independents, the ones who identify as moderates. That is a constituency that Hillary Clinton owns.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken?</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: No - I agree with that completely. And I also think that ultimately, this will be about the state of the economy. If the economy is getting better, if more jobs are being created, then Obama can run against his improving record and compare it to the Republicans. But if the economy is bad then, you know, you could put Neal Conan on the ticket, and I don't think it would help.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, I don't think that would help anyway. But maybe somebody could find out that Hillary Clinton's - ask questions about her birth certificate, and find out that she was born in Scranton.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Tanya: Obama is emotionally flat. The Obama-Biden ticket is without much life or enthusiasm. If he were to select Hillary Clinton to be his VP, he would energize the Democratic Party base overnight. This question should be polled. But I believe putting her on the ticket would make a difference with independents, too, and it would almost likely ensure policy continuity where warranted, and guarantee Clinton another shot at becoming president in 2016. It'd make a big difference for me. I would enthusiastically work for the ticket with Hillary on it. Otherwise, I will still vote for Obama-Biden, but nothing more.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So there, a vote for some enthusiasm and Hillary Clinton...</s>BILL KELLER: I hope the president is listening to the program.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I hope so, too. But Hillary Clinton - we always need more listeners in Washington - but Hillary Clinton is an exceptional campaigner.</s>BILL KELLER: She is. She is a very good - and she has gotten better, actually. You know, in her early days as a campaigner, I think she had a reputation for being a little preachy, you know? And she's learned how to listen - or at least how to do a very good impression of a politician listening. And, you know, and she's - I watched her a bit in 2008, and I've watched her - admittedly, the role of secretary of State is not the same as being - campaigning for public office, but I'd watch her...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But she seems a lot more comfortable, yeah. She seems a lot more comfortable.</s>BILL KELLER: She seems more comfortable in her own skin. There's a kind of warmth, and a sort of accessibility that she has grown into. She's a very appealing candidate.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: You know...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bill Keller of The New York Times. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Ken, I'm sorry I cut you off.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I apologize for that. You know what's interesting about this is that for the longest time, the Republicans have been saying only nice things about Hillary Clinton. Now, I don't know if...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That would come to a stop.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: No, exactly. I don't know if it's to tweak the Democrats, or tweak President Obama, but they seem to - all the bad things they said about her when she was in the Senate, running for president; now, as secretary of State, they've been saying wonderful things. Let's see how long it lasts when she gets on the ticket.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robin is on the line, calling from Fort Mill in South Carolina.</s>ROBIN: Yes. I - this - Hillary Clinton on the ticket would seal my vote. Since we've had - I have been a registered Democrat my whole life, but I have been following the Republican debates religiously because I've been very disappointed in some of the weaknesses I've seen of Obama. But there are tons and tons - even in the South - of Hillary fans who have been grieving since Obama won the nomination, who would be out in force. And I think it would seal the deal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robin, thanks very much for the call. Here's an...</s>BILL KELLER: This is the only time I've been on your show, when everybody who's calling in agrees with me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, that's why...</s>BILL KELLER: It's a refreshing change.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well...</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: We still have Ken Rudin.</s>BILL KELLER: I know. I know. I know.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email...</s>BILL KELLER: But Ken's coming around.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, here's an email from Stephanie, and this says: It seems like Joe Biden is doing a great job. Hillary Clinton is pretty tired after doing a great job as secretary of State. Why would they swap jobs?</s>BILL KELLER: Yeah. Well, that's a very good question. And one thing you hear a lot from people close to Hillary - including her husband, who has said this publicly - is that she's exhausted. I mean, she has spent - she's been a road warrior for three years in some very tough places. She's living on an airplane, dealing with very tough issues. And I'm sure she is exhausted. You know, the proposal that I put in the column - and, you know, somebody else can reinvent this, but - would be that she steps down as secretary of State soon-ish - you know, early spring, late winter, early spring - and actually does take a break, rejuvenate. She can, you know, make a few million dollars by writing the next volume of her memoirs. And then, you know, come the convention in the fall, she comes back, rested - tanned, rested and ready.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tanned, rested and ready, yeah.</s>BILL KELLER: And meantime, you know, Joe Biden was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's not a slouch on international policy. In fact, from the point of view of those disaffected liberals who were referenced earlier, you know, Biden is probably more popular - would maybe be a more popular secretary of state. So, you know, give him the State portfolio. I think that would be a perfectly honorable way for a Joe Biden to end a long and accomplished and distinguished career. It wouldn't be, you know, throwing him under the bus in some sort of a disloyal way.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get Linda on the line. Linda is calling us from Stockton, California.</s>LINDA: I have to say this - I'm going to quote, ridiculous scenario. And I think it's very unwise - some might say disloyal - but very unwise for Democrats, pro-Obama people, to even discuss this. It's making Republicans, and the right wing, chuckle and laugh. It's going to make President Obama, if he did this, look weak. It's going to make them look desperate.</s>LINDA: And I'm hoping Elizabeth Warren will be our candidate in 2016. And that's all I'm going to say, but I was an independent for many, many, many years; was a Democrat during college. Then I was an independent all the time I was raising children. And I came back to the Democratic Party and left my independent registration. And in California, you really need to have a party, you know, because of our primary system.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, not so much anymore.</s>LINDA: Yeah. But I mean, for many years, I wasn't able to vote in the primary.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah. Well, I get...</s>LINDA: Obama livened me, and many people - and I worked very hard in that campaign; I called many states. And I'm going to work even harder in this one. I do not want Hillary Clinton, who - I will never forget the view of the pilgrimage that President Obama had to make to her home after the election.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mm-hmm.</s>LINDA: I will never forget that. That, to me, spoke volumes...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Linda, thanks very much. She - Elizabeth Warren would, of course, have to win election first to the Senate in Massachusetts. And of course, Ken, it's completely absurd to think that a first-term U.S. senator from - would get the nomination and run for president, but...</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Right - as Barack Obama would tell you, right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Absolutely ridiculous. Bill Keller, thank you so much for your time today. We appreciate it. We're glad we could find some people to utterly trash you before you got off the air.</s>BILL KELLER: It's a pleasure. Thanks for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bill Keller, the former editor at the New York Times, and now the columnist at the newspaper. "Just the Ticket," he wrote in Sunday's edition of the New York Times. You could find a link to that column at npr.org; just click on TALK OF THE NATION. Ken Rudin will be back with us next Wednesday from - here in Washington, D.C. Ken, thanks very much for your time today.</s>KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I say we dump Henry Wallace in 1944.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tomorrow: the abortion debate. Abortion-rights opponents have made some strategic changes in the last few years abortion-right supporters have yet to find a way to respond to. Join us for that. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

New state laws reflect controversial national issues such as immigration. They also regulate local concerns from requiring teaching about important gay figures in California schools to limiting when New Yorkers can fertilize their lawns. NPR's Corey Dade and Pam Fessler discuss 2012's new laws.

JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Jennifer Ludden, in Washington. Neal Conan is away. This week ushered in the new year, of course, and with it came a raft of new laws from Florida to California. States passed almost 40,000 laws last year. Many of them took effect this week; a host of others will roll out in the coming months.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Some of these new laws govern local issues and concerns, like allowing kids under 10 to hunt in Michigan or banning happy-hour drink specials in Utah. Others reflect hot-button national issues like immigration, abortion and government spending.</s>So tell us: What are the new laws where you live, and how will they affect you? Give us a call. 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 tell us: Later in the program, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Cynthia Tucker left her long-time post at the Atlanta Journal Constitution last year. We'll talk with her about the role of opinion writing in American journalism.</s>So tell us: But first the new laws of 2012. Joining me now in Studio 3A is Corey Dade, NPR national correspondent. Hi, Corey, welcome.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Hi, Jennifer.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So, many states have been grappling with budget shortfalls. We're seeing a lot of new laws reflecting these economic woes, I guess especially when it comes to public employees. What do you see?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely, public employees is one of the places were governments, specifically state governments but even local governments, have really tried to pull in the line. Many of these public employees are being made to contribute more to their retirement benefits, and that's been something that's happened across the board in many states.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Michigan, for example, did this with their public employees; Delaware; North Dakota; so many different states. And in Arizona, for example, newly hired workers are going to receive lower benefits than the existing workers.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So smaller paychecks and not as big a pension in the end, I guess, for some.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Right, but in exchange, they still get a little bit more job security in this difficult economy.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, we have seen a lot of resistance to this. The protests in Wisconsin made national news. State legislatures, though, say some of them feel they have no choice.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: They have no choice. The - in every state, this is the same argument that's been waged by public employee unions, by local governments that rely on state funding for everything from education, to health benefits, to Medicare. But at the same time, the state governments are saying our revenues are down.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: But there are some projections, this year, that show that many state governments actually may be seeing - not so much the light at the end of the tunnel, but as many of these state legislatures come into session in January, this month - they may not be dealing with the severe budget shortages that they faced when they came in over the last two previous years.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, other states are looking at tax credits as another way to shore up revenues. What's going on there?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Well, in Michigan - Michigan for starters - they actually did the opposite. They reduced the earned income tax credit that goes to about 800,000 or so low-income families. That benefit was cut by 70 percent.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Wow.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Exactly. So families that really relied on it, they got a credit of about $400 ,now will get a credit of about $140. But what they did in Michigan and other states, they gave tax - more tax - they called it tax reform, but what they effectively did is start lowering, sort of, across-the-board taxes and other tariffs on businesses to try to spur economy - spur the local economy and accelerate job growth.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So, really shifting their tax structure there.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Anything else on the economic front that we should note?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Well, I think what we're seeing also is a lot of local governments and state governments are bracing for the impact of the health care law that was passed by Congress. Of course that is President Obama's health care reform law. From state to state, it is unclear what it would mean for state budgets, but one thing is clear for people who are going to be shopping for insurance. One thing the law requires is a more clear and simplified explanation of benefits.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: So that is actually mandated. So from state to state, one thing that will be consistent is people looking for new coverage, maybe better rates, should have a more easily to understand set of benefits that they'll get.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK, moving on, we've seen a number of new laws about abortion regulations.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: That's right. One that stands out is in New Hampshire. Girls who want to seek - who are seeking an abortion, first have to tell their parents or a judge. That is something that abortion advocates see as a clear pattern of trying to increase the level of oversight, the level of interdiction that - intervention, rather, that authorities can have before abortions actually take place.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Some on the other side, the pro-choice movement, think that this is going to be an open - open the door to lawsuits in New Hampshire and other states that are trying the same legislation.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And we actually have someone on the line from New Hampshire. McKayla(ph) is in Dover. Hi, there.</s>MCKAYLA: Hi.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Go right ahead.</s>MCKAYLA: I'm calling to make a comment upon the new law, which requires women under 18 to notify their parents or a judge. I think that it was a political boon for the Republicans, a really easy issue to convince parents that there should be a law that their teenagers tell them if they're getting an abortion.</s>MCKAYLA: But truth be told, I mean, stuff can get really weird up in New Hampshire. You know, home situations are not always perfect, and I think that this is a really dangerous law for teenagers, women under 18.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, McKayla, thanks for the call. So Corey, this was controversial, I take it?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely, and it's not the first time this law has actually come up. This has been kicked around before this past year, when it was passed. So there's not - this wasn't one of the laws that was passed in New Hampshire that had an enormous amount of public sentiment behind it.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We should note that a lot of laws also are taking effect to restrict immigration, tighten voter ID laws. We'll be talking a lot of about that in a few moments. But what do you - what trend overall are you seeing here, Corey? We've had a lot of - last year, we were talking about conservatives taking control of legislatures, right? So...</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely. That – conservatives, or rather Republicans, taking broader control over state legislatures and governors offices. Consider this, Jennifer: Republicans now control 28 of the 50 state legislatures, and Democrats only control about 15. The rest of the state legislatures are split between Democratic and Republican control.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: And it doesn't stop there: Republicans control not only the legislature but also the governor's office in 23 states. So not only do you have legislative control, but now your party in many of these states, in the majority of states, have control of the governor's office, who actually can actually sign this legislation.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: So it does reflect this sort of red-state wave that happened in 2010, and now you're seeing on the local level and on the state level a lot of legislation come out of that, like you said abortion, immigration, crackdowns on so-called voter fraud, all those things are happening.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: In the case of voter fraud, in the case of voter ID, you had several states last year that passed legislation, I think it's eight, that passed legislation requiring some form of ID before they vote, which obviously we'll talk about later.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK, let's take another call. Matthew's(ph) in San Jose, California. Hi there.</s>MATTHEW: How's it going?</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Good.</s>MATTHEW: Yeah, in San Jose, California, we have a new law that bans polyurethane plastic bags for all small business and large businesses.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So none at all? You can't even pay five cents for them?</s>MATTHEW: You can pay five cents for them, but nobody seems - around me wants to pay that. And then there's also businesses that are ignoring the new law, and so people are just leaving one liquor store, going across the street and going to another one.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Oh dear, they'll have to get the enforcement up to gear there. All right, Matthew, you think it's a good law or no?</s>MATTHEW: I personally think that it's good and that people are just going to end up having to, you know, carry bags with them, the reusable, maybe a backpack. I personally think that it's a very good thing, and I can take my comments off the air.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, thank you, Matthew.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Maybe that'll be the next legislation that comes out, the polyurethane bag police.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, we've got tens of thousands of new laws, so many, a lot of them just one-offs here and there. Illinois has an interesting one, a registry for convicted murderers. Explain that.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Exactly, when you think about registry, most of us think about the sex offender registries that are very common now in many states. But for people convicted of murders, once they do their time, and they're released from prison, the law requires or will require that they register on a database that the state will maintain, and it's done in an effort, in their minds, to alert the public of potential dangers.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: But it does raise a question of how restrictive that database will be. In the case of sex offender registries, the big problem is that sex offenders are restricted from living in certain areas, obviously within certain vicinities of schools and such. So in many states what you're finding with sex offenders is that they often get pushed further and further away from communities that they actually can afford to live in.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And so we might see the same thing with convicted murderers who have served their time, or is that the concern?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: That is the concern because you have to - you have to give everything. You have to give - you register your name, your address, place of birth - place of birth, your place of resident, of course, residence, of course.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: But yes, it - when you have people trying to re-enter society, the opponents of this legislation raise the question of whether or not they'll be able to effectively do that.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, so a new registry of convicted murderers in Illinois.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Right.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Very briefly, what about this end of happy hour in Utah that we mentioned? How can they do that?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Well, what they did was pass a law that actually makes it illegal to have any drink specials, daily drink specials, that's what they call it, which we know as happy hour. And when you look at the state in which it occurs, I don't think too many of our listeners should be surprised by that.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: But it does reflect the continued - the continued sentiments, in Utah in particular, against alcohol consumption in public.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: A state with a large Mormon population.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, we'll have more new state laws in a moment. We're talking about new laws taking effect in 2012. Some of the more controversial ones focus on immigration and voter ID, and we'll dive into that soon. What are the new laws where you live, and how will they affect you? Call us at 800-989-8255. Or email us, talk@npr.org. I'm Jennifer Ludden. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden. As of January 1st, it's illegal in California to sell a live animal on any street or in any parking lot or at a carnival. Hmm. Government workers in Delaware and other states must contribute more to their retirement funds. Other states added laws in health care, employment, abortion and immigration, among others.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: What are the new laws where you live, and how will they affect you? Call us at 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>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We've got a caller in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Hi there, Jerry.</s>JERRY: Hello.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Go right ahead.</s>JERRY: Yeah, well, the new law that I'm a little miffed about in Michigan is they have decided to start taxing, for the income tax, for the first time public employee retirement income. And I know when I was - it's been a few years, about 10 years ago that I was a public employee, the first 15 years of my career I spent as a public employee. And at the time, I know I wasn't getting paid market value, but one of the reasons that I stayed with it was to make sure that I had a retirement plan.</s>JERRY: As an engineer in private practice, there's no such thing as retirement plans other than 401(k)s and such that you have to self-fund. And so basically, they're going to take away, now, 4 percent every year of whatever I use out of my retirement plan.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So you're getting those benefits now? You're going to see that cut now?</s>JERRY: In a few years. I'm just short of retirement right now.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. Was there a lot of protest there in Michigan?</s>JERRY: Actually, they're - well, I guess there's been a general march to scapegoat public employees in general at the state House. So there's been a lot of public protests, you know, from public employees on a number of issues, larger ones to current employees are benefit changes and things like that. But, yeah, so that's...</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Well, Jerry, thanks for the phone call. And NPR national correspondent Corey Dade, Jerry's not alone out there.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: No, he's not, especially in the Midwest states, where they've been hit particularly hard with budget shortfalls as a result of just revenue drying up to the states. We've seen it in Wisconsin. We've seen efforts similar to this in Ohio. And in Michigan, Michigan has been so decimated. They were at the tip of the spear when the recession hit.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: They were actually having budget shortfalls before the recession hit. So the caller is right insofar as there's been a lot of criticism from people in so many different - in parts of the state about the different cuts that are being made - that are being placed on public employees that governments really have faced so much not only criticism from them, but really, they haven't been able to find any other levers to pull because so many of these local - state governments also, but also so many of these cities have industrial economies that have not been able to diversify.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: So they have no choice, in some degree - at least the argument that comes from the governor and other public officials - but to go after the benefits of public employees.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right let's move on now to some of the big trends that we're seeing. A lot of states have focused on immigration. What's happening there, Corey?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely. As you know and many know, that last year in particular, Arizona, other states - well, Arizona did this before, but other states like Georgia, Alabama, have started passing laws that tighten up immigration enforcement. And that's specifically laws that allow law enforcement to actually become more aggressive in questioning people suspected of being illegal immigrants for documentation to prove that they're here illegally.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Alabama has the most strict law, of course, at this point, and it goes further than any other law. Now there's so much blowback to the Alabama law, that - it's being criticized as going too far, that now the legislature itself, when it comes into session this month, is actually looking at ways to scale it back.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: So along with that, the laws or the provisions that are actually coming into effect this year are the E-Verify provisions. And this refers to the federal system, the federal database that businesses in states like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, businesses in those states will have to go to that database, go to the E-Verify database to confirm that their new employees are actually in the country legally. And they face fines, a variety of different penalties if they do not.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And this has been a program that's been pretty controversial, and people say there's, you know, false positives or negatives. It doesn't - it definitely does not have a 100 percent accuracy rate here, but they're working on it, and it has been spreading quickly.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: It has been spreading, and it's actually one aspect of many of these immigration enforcement laws that's been held up by the courts. It's been allowed to proceed, while the other provisions are still under challenge - in some cases injunction - by the federal courts.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Of course, that's because the federal government is actually suing to overturn this legislation on the state level. But E-Verify certainly has survived the legal challenge.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So another step there for some business owners. In terms of court challenges, the Supreme Court is going to look at this issue, is that right, this coming year?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: The Supreme Court will not look at E-Verify because that's already been decided by the courts. But the high court did decide to take up the Arizona case, which everyone was expecting will happen. Certainly, the proponents of this law in Arizona were hoping that this would happen.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: And so whatever side the Supreme Court comes down on will have enormous consequences for all these other laws.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Right. So other states may have to change or tweak their laws depending on what comes out of the Supreme Court.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And what about - are there other states out there thinking of creating laws, waiting to see what happens?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Yeah, these types of laws are actually in the works in one form or another in so many different states, too many to name. Some of them have been rejected by certain legislatures over the last year or so. But I think at this point, what I'm seeing is that many states are actually pausing to see what happens with these federal cases, and they're trying to look at that and possibly actually tweak their laws before there actually is a federal decision in these different court cases or a Supreme Court decision, so that they can perhaps find a way to thread that needle and get their legislation passed eventually. So this is a very pivotal year for this whole issue.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, we've been talking about laws restricting - aiming to restrict illegal immigration. Some states have taken a different tact - California, for example.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: That's right. California has its own version of the DREAM Act, and of course the DREAM Act was the federal provision proposed by Congress that would have actually put on a path to citizenship a certain population of Latinos in particular, but illegal immigrants whose parents came to this country and brought their children with them as babies.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: And there are a bunch of different provisions that would qualify these groups of people, but on the state level in California, what they're doing is actually extending scholarships to the children who were born in other countries as infants, but have spent their entire lives here - scholarships for college.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So not just the ability to go to a public institution...</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: To attend, right.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: But to qualify - now, I read private scholarships at public institutions?</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Right. They are - what - this is actually similar to what Illinois is trying to do. They're using their leverage - the state government is using their leverage to actually bring together private investment, nonprofits, et cetera, to fund this. And this is, in some degree, a political answer, the idea being that we're going to help these children and these young people get an education at institutions, but we're not going to put it on the backs of the taxpayer.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. Corey Dade is a national correspondent for NPR. He's with us here in Studio 3A. Thank you so much.</s>COREY DADE, BYLINE: Thank you, Jennifer.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: NPR correspondent Pam Fessler joins us now here, as well. She's been covering voting identification laws around the country. Welcome, Pam.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Glad to be here.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, before we dig a little deeper, let's just clarify: We're talking about laws that require voters to present a certain kind of identification, right, when you go to vote.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: That's right. We're talking specifically about a government-issued photo ID. Lots of states require some kind of ID, but these are very strict rules that require these specific government-issued photo IDs.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK, now this is an election year, so this is a very relevant topic, lots of new laws. What do you see happening?</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Well, what we have - before this year, we only had two states that required these government-issued photo IDs. It was Georgia and Indiana. And now we have, starting this year, a number of states that either have new laws and new requirements, or might have new laws and requirements.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Kansas, Tennessee, Wisconsin are now - those laws have gone into effect. They will require their voters to show government-issued photo ID. Laws were also passed in South Carolina and Texas, but both of those states - because of the Voting Rights Act - require the Department of Justice to approve their voting law changes. And just a couple of weeks ago, the Department of Justice blocked South Carolina's law from going into effect because they said that it would discriminate against minorities who are less likely to have this photo ID.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: I think read somewhere 20 percent less likely.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: About 20 percent, yeah, less likely. But the state is saying that it's going to challenge that decision, so we don't know what's going to happen for - but, you know, in November, what South Carolina's votes...</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Just to make it more confusing.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Exactly, exactly. And then at the same time, there are a number of states that are considering new voter ID laws this year, which could, in fact, go into effect before the election. It's going on in Nebraska, Virginia, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey. It's a really hot topic.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Wow. Now, these laws have, obviously, been extremely controversial. Why do lawmakers say that they need them?</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Well, the proponents - which tend to be Republican. Most of the ones - the new laws have been passed by Republican legislatures, although it's not totally the case. But they say that a photo ID is needed to prevent fraud at the polling place. They argue that - especially in this era when we have so many close elections - that even if there's a little bit of fraud, somebody coming and voting using a false identity - that, you know, it could steal the election. Although, quite frankly, there's very little evidence that there's much of this type of fraud, and what there is - it tends to be more with absentee ballots, with a lot - which a lot of these laws don't address.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Oh, really? You don't have to show the same ID, obviously, I guess, (unintelligible).</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: It depends, state by state. Some states, you do have to show ID if you submit an absentee ballot, but some others, you don't.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Hmm. Let's get a caller in the line, Calvin in Sumter, South Carolina. Hi there, Calvin.</s>CALVIN: Good evening. How are you doing?</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Good.</s>CALVIN: Out here, we are the only state to have that bill shut down, because it's a very, very bad bill, like you said, your guest said. There's never been no case of voter fraud here. Now, what is the fraud is that 217,000 people here in South Carolina, it would have disenfranchised. You would have - (unintelligible) would have - took them - their rights away from them. Now, that is the fraud. And a matter of fact, it's five million across the nation that a lot of these bills that some states have allowed to pass would disenfranchise.</s>CALVIN: But what it has done, it has poisoned the mind of a lot of people thinking that now they can't vote without this voter ID. So no, I think they need to - the states need to be responsible for putting it out there that they can vote with their - without their ID.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And do I understand, Calvin, you're actually part of a party - a lawsuit against this.</s>CALVIN: Exactly. We are the ones that went to Justice Department, along with several groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, Progressive Network, the Women's League of Voters, AARP. All of us have combined, because this was disenfranchising several people, I mean, thousands, hundreds of thousands of people abroad and millions, like I said, you know, across the nation. So - but right now, we're expect them to appeal this, and we will be - we're ready to sharpen our nails and fight this tooth and nail to the very end.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Well, Calvin, thank you so much for your phone call.</s>CALVIN: Thank you.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Pam, we heard a lot of numbers there.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Well, it's interesting. I actually did go down to South Carolina to do a story about this, and, in fact, found a number of people and interviewed quite a few people who, as hard it is to believe, don't have any kind of government-issued photo ID. And the issue is is that most of the states that require this are saying they'll provide free ID to anybody who needs it. But the problem is a lot of people do not have the underlying documents that they need to get the free ID.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Such as?</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: A birth certificate, or maybe they have a birth certificate, but the name is different than the one that they have on their Social Security card. And I found, especially in South Carolina, that a lot of this was common in certain rural areas. Many years ago, when people were born on the farm with midwives, they just, quite frankly, never got a birth certificate. And as hard it is to believe, they've gone through life without one. And so those people - that's what the argument is, is that it imposes a huge burden on these people who are legitimate voters, or probably legitimate voters, that they have to spend a lot of money and a lot of time trying to get these documents so that they can get the photo ID.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You said that it's not clear there is a huge problem with voter fraud. Are there any confirmed cases of voter fraud?</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Actually, in South Carolina, the state election commission told me that they had - on record, they had no confirmed cases of voter fraud in the state. Now, that said, I would say you see a handful of cases in every state almost every election year, where there are allegations, but maybe they don't prosecute them. So, I mean, there are some cases of voter fraud. But the proponents of these laws are saying even one case of voter fraud in a tight election is too many. And that's why they say they need these laws. But, of course, the opponents say even one case of a legitimate voter being denied the right to vote is too many.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So contentious and tied up in the courts, so we'll have to see. Are there other states not required to get clearance from the Justice Department who have more freedom in what they can require?</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Well, they do in some sense, in that their laws have already gone into effect. I mentioned Wisconsin. Wisconsin has one of the laws that went into effect January 1st, and it is one of the stricter ones. And the state is trying to implement - they're trying to educate people so that they know that they do need ID now. But this particular law is now the target of a lawsuit by the ACLU, which is challenging the constitutionality of it because it says it not only discriminates against minorities, but also the elderly and students who are also less likely to have the required ID.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: In - I mean, in Wisconsin, a government - I mean, a university - a state university ID does not qualify as an - it doesn't meet the requirements of the new law. So the argument is that many students might not be able to vote.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Pam Fessler is an NPR correspondent. She covers poverty and follows voter ID requirements across the country. She joined us in Studio 3A. Thank you so much.</s>PAM FESSLER, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Up next, longtime columnist Cynthia Tucker joins us. She's now teaching journalism. We'll talk about the role and evolution of opinion journalism. Stay with us. I'm Jennifer Ludden. This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

A placebo can take the form of a sugar pill or even a fake surgery. It's often used to test the effectiveness of a trial drug. Ted Kaptchuk, director of Harvard University's Program in Placebo Studies and the Therapeutic Encounter, discusses potential applications for the healing power of placebos.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. It's a story we've heard before: A doctor prescribes a fake pill to a patient after other medications have failed. The patient begins to feel better after taking what she thinks is a real drug, but is only a placebo.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: The story is not fictitious. It's rooted in real data. One study estimates 50 percent of U.S. physicians who believe in the benefits of placebos and the placebo effect secretly give dummy pills to unsuspecting patients. The ethical-questionable practice led researchers at Harvard University to explore whether the power of placebos can be harnessed honestly, and what they found was the placebos work even when patients are in on the secret that it is a sham treatment. They know that they're taking a placebo, and it still works.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Ted Kaptchuk is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Med School, director of the Program in Placebo Studies and the Therapeutic Encounter at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The program was created last summer and is wholly dedicated to the study of placebos. He joins us from Cambridge, Mass. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Ira, thanks for inviting me.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How do you define a placebo?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Well, a placebo is a sugar pill or inert substance that's used to hide the genuine treatment in a clinical trial. A placebo effect is the effect of a sugar pill. The problem with that common definition is that it's an oxymoron: An inert pill can't have an effect. So what our team says is that the placebo is also hiding a very important phenomena: the clinical encounter. We think the placebo effect is the - a surrogate marker, or a way of measuring the effect of just caring for a person, the act of caring for a person.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: We think that it's - the placebo is about the words, the gestures, eye contact, warmth, empathy, compassion that a physician exchanges with a patient, a doctor-patient relationship. We think the placebo is about medical symbols, white coats, diplomas, prescription pads.</s>We think the placebo is about medical rituals, the ritual procedures in medicine: waiting, talking, disrobing, being examined and being treated by pills or surgery. Ultimately, we think the placebo is about the power of the imagination, trust and hope in the medical encounter.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Can you quantify any of this, then?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Well, that's what my work is, and that's what our program at the Beth Israel Deaconess and Harvard Medical School is trying to do, is that this is usually considered the art of medicine. It's in the background. People are mostly concerned about drugs, procedures and surgery, and our job is to quantify what's been hidden in the background and move it to the foreground, to make the human aspects of health care more prominent and optimalize them once we understand what they can do and how they work.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Because we hear that the placebo effect works about 30 percent of the time, correct?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: No, that's more of a medical myth. Sometimes - sugar pills will not shrink a tumor, will not lower cholesterol, don't lower hypertension. Placebo effects work in some conditions much better than others. Placebo treatments will work in things like pain, insomnia, depression, anxiety, functional bowel disorders, functional urinary disorders. So that 30 percent is really a myth that was created a long time ago.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And you've discovered - let me see if this is correct - that even when the patients know they're taking a placebo, it still works?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Well, discovery is a big word. We - what we did was we randomized patients with irritable bowel syndrome, half of whom went - we gave them placebos. We told them it was placebos. The bottle said they were placebos. We told them that the study was about placebos. This is an inert pill they were taking. And half of them we randomized to no-treatment control wait-list to make sure that if they changed and got better, it wasn't the normal, natural waxing and waning of diseases or spontaneous remission.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And we found, after three weeks, that people who were taking placebos did much better than those in the comparison group. Our study was small. It needs to be replicated. It's more proof of principle. But it certainly changes the conventional wisdom, which was if you know you're taking a placebo, you're not going to get better.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And what we - I think many other teams have to replicate this in other diseases, and we hope that that will happen down the line.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But you're saying, if I heard you correctly, just to go back on your original statement, is that the placebo basically masks, or it's really the encounter with the doctor and all the trappings of the office and being taken care of that - is the action that is actually helping the patient and making the patient feel better.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: I think that's what I meant to say. I'm glad you said it that way. Yeah, a sugar pill doesn't do anything. What does something is the context of healing. It's the rituals healing. It's being in a healing relationship. And that's what we study.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: But the placebo pill is a wonderful tool, or a saline injection is a wonderful tool to isolate what is usually in the background, take it away from the medications and procedures that medicine does, and actually study just the act of caring. That's, I think, what we're measuring when we study placebo effects.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And how did you get involved in this, in Harvard opening up this center?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: I was originally hired at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in 1990 to help do research in Asian medicine. And when I got there - my original training was in Asia - they talked about we have to find out whether this intervention, be it acupuncture, herbs or other kinds of alternative therapies, is more than placebo.</s>And I would ask: So what does it mean that it's more than placebo? And they say: Well, it's more than placebo. And I have a background in civil rights when I was a young person. And I said, boy, they're treating this placebo effect like it's really some kind of disgusting phenomena. And what is it exactly? So I would ask, and I realized there wasn't a lot known. And I thought this would be a better way of doing my career.</s>And I would ask: Luckily, at that time, the NIH created a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which has a deep interest in investigating the placebo effect. And I've been able to receive funding for many, many experiments, which hopefully have contributed to understanding this phenomenon better.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: One criticism of giving patients placebos is that it's unethical, it involves deception.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Anytime one deceives a patient, in my opinion, it is unethical. The clear standard of ethics is transparency, respect for person and informed consent. The only time you're able to do deception is if a patient agrees in a randomized control trial that things will be concealed.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: So my job is to think of ethical ways of optimizing the different aspects of the therapeutic encounter so that we can use placebo effects ethically. The second way, my job is, to try to figure out: Is there a way of using sugar pills in situations where we really don't have good therapies, where the sugar pill may be valuable?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: A third aspect of my job is to figure out ways of lowering placebo effects, because one of the problems for drug development is that sometimes the drug may be effective, but it competes with the placebo effect, and it's very hard to detect the difference. So those are my three jobs that I think I'm doing.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You had some interesting findings of an asthma study that you did.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Yeah, our asthma study was published in the New England Journal this summer. It was funded by NCCAM at the NIH, and it was - it actually came out different than we expected. We gave - we bought time from asthma patients, 40 patients. And we brought them in, and we took them off their medication 12 different times.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And we brought them in every few days at one session, and at different times, we gave them an active bronchial dilator, albuterol, which is an effective drug for relieving asthma. Three times we gave them fake inhalator. Three times we gave them fake acupuncture, and three times we gave them no treatment, just sitting and doing nothing, because sometimes people get better by just sitting and doing nothing. We want to make sure that it's this - the placebo that's doing something, not just sitting and waiting.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And we had a very interesting finding that actually we didn't expect. We found that when we looked at objective measures, the amount of air that's pushed out of the lungs in one second, we found that the real medication was - showed a great improvement. The two placebos - the placebo inhalator, the placebo acupuncture - had a little bit of improvement, and the sitting there and doing nothing had a little bit of improvement.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: There actually was no placebo effect at all on an objective measure on the pathophysiology of asthma. But then my asthma colleagues said, oh, my God. This whole experiment didn't work. And I said, someone get the statistician to get the subjective outcomes. How did people feel?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And when they crunched the numbers while we were waiting, it turned out that the - when you asked the patient how much they feel relief from their asthma, their subjective experience, their own personal sensation, the real medication was very effective. The fake inhalator was very effective, and the fake acupuncture was very effective. And just sitting there for two-and-a-half hours was - is very, very little.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: And what we found was that on subjective, person-centered, how one feels, there was no drug effect, because the drug was no different than the two placebos. And it - we inferred to this, at least in this situation, that the placebo effect is mainly about how we experience things: symptoms, complaints, how we react to the underlying pathology.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Whether this applies across the board I think is too early to say, but I think it can say - at least in this experiment - it looks like the placebo is about the experiences that patients have, not necessarily about the underlying pathology. But obviously, more research.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. You didn't prevent the underlying pathology from working, but the patients didn't mind as much that something...</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Well, they felt as good as taking the drug, yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, they felt as good as taking the drug.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Right, absolutely.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. Is there any message here for doctors? We've got about a minute left. Any message here...?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Well, I think the bottom message is the drugs are real important, but also just taking care of people and the act of compassion, taking care, the act of trust is really critical. And that - and with lots of experiments - show that that potentiates the effects of very powerful drugs.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: The bottom line is low-tech placebo may have something to contribute to high-tech procedures, surgery and medicine.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And be much cheaper.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Hopefully.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Of course, you have to spend time with the patient, too, which is another story in itself, isn't it?</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Yeah, yeah. But, you know, a skilled physician, if you know - if you know how to ask: How is the person - how's your aunt doing? That's a major, major thing that takes a minute. Or how's the things - how's that problem at work going? Besides asking about the urination or where the pain is.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Interesting. Thank you, Ted.</s>TED KAPTCHUK: Thank you so much for inviting me.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Ted Kaptchuk is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Med School and director of the Program in Placebo Studies and the Therapeutic Encounter at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. We're going to take a break. We're going to come back and look at the debate over publishing two bird flu studies and the questions of balancing science and security. Should the studies be published as they were done, or should some data be withheld? All coming up after the break. Stay with us.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

Actor Tilda Swinton plays the mother of a child who commits a horrific crime in the film We Need To Talk About Kevin. In the film We Need To Talk About Kevin, Oscar-winning actor Tilda Swinton plays the tortured mother of a disturbed, disruptive and manipulative son. As he gets older, Kevin — played as a child by Rocky Duer, and by Ezra Miller as a teen — systematically undermines his mother and his parents' marriage, and then goes on a horrific, Columbine-reminiscent killing spree. The film, based on a novel by Lionel Shriver, follows Swinton's character, Eva Khatchadourian, as she attempts to grapple with her son's shocking crime. Swinton talks with NPR's Neal Conan about We Need To Talk About Kevin and the challenge of playing such a sober role.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: In a new movie, Tilda Swinton and John C. Reilly play the parents of a disturbed, disruptive, manipulative son, who systematically undermines his mother and his parents' marriage. At one point, we see them in their living room discussing a breakup.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: JOHN C. REILLY: (As Franklin) At least custody is a no-brainer.</s>TILDA SWINTON: (As Eva) Is it? You've decided?</s>REILLY: (As Franklin) Eva, there's nothing left to decide. It already happened.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: At that moment, they notice their teenage son Kevin watching from the balcony above.</s>EZRA MILLER: (As Kevin) Need a drink of water.</s>REILLY: (As Franklin) Hey, Kev. Listen, buddy. It's easy to misunderstand something when you hear it out of context.</s>EZRA MILLER: (As Kevin) Why would I not know the context? I am the context.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is based on the novel by Lionel Shriver about a mother coping with the aftermath of her son's Columbine-like killing spree. Tilda Swinton stars as Eva Khatchadourian.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you'd like to talk with her about this or her other films, give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Academy Award winner Tilda Swinton joins us now from our bureau in New York. Nice to have you with us today on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Hello, Neal. Happy New Year.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And happy New Year to you. Can you tell us, what attracted you to this part?</s>TILDA SWINTON: Well, what attracted me to the film was Lynne Ramsay, the director, who's an extremely talented filmmaker who has made way too few films, in my opinion, and I was waiting for another film from her. We became friends during the time in between her last feature, which is about nine years ago now. She made two features, one called "Ratcatcher," and the other called "Morvern Callar." And "Morvern Callar," I think, was about nine years ago. And we became friends. And I - when I heard that she was adapting this book, which I knew quite well, I was really intrigued because anybody who knows this book, it's quite a chunk of change, and Lynne Ramsay herself is no slouch. So the idea or the combination was really compelling.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The book is a series of letters...</s>TILDA SWINTON: Yeah.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...a woman sitting, writing letter after letter, intelligent, smart, acidly funny, in some respects. The film is entirely different.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Well, the grace and the torture of adapting good books is that you got to throw them away if you're going to make a possible film. This book has a lot of words in it, as books tend to, but it has really rather more well-chosen words than a lot, and it is, as you say, all written letters.</s>TILDA SWINTON: And it's about somebody - it's written - my character, Eva, is writing these letters to her husband Franklin, who you - throughout. You can see that they're separated, and she's trying not only to describe, but also to explain and understand the story of their life together and the upbringing of their child, who becomes such a problem, to say the least. And so the whole premise of the book is about, you know, trying to be articulate.</s>TILDA SWINTON: And we realized in making the film and developing the screenplay that that was going to be the very opposite of our project. Our project was going to be about not being able to - it's about being - things being unspeakable, literally, about having nobody to talk to. I mean, unless you are going to film over somebody's shoulder while they write screeds and screeds of letters, we knew we were going to have to, you know, throw that element out and make a great departure. So I would say that the film is inspired by the book in a way that it's not really an adaptation because its premise is so different.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: As you mentioned, she is very articulate in the book. In the film, the character you play is almost shattered.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Yeah. I mean, I call her dumb, but I mean that she's numb and dumbed. She has nobody to talk to, and she's really unraveled at the point which we meet her. We quite quickly - there's no spoiler alert needed for the fact that, you know, very early on in the book and very early on in the film we get to know that this boy has perpetrated, you know, a high school killing. And so, that's not a, as it were, a big deal narratively to let that away. So we know that she's having to deal with that.</s>TILDA SWINTON: We see her very early on being thumped in the face by a stranger for smiling and having her car and her house painted with red paint by passersby. We can see as some kind of martyr. And she has nobody to talk to about this at all. And I love this element, I have to say, not just in a quite masochistic way...</s>TILDA SWINTON: ...but I find there's something very beautiful when a character is so alienated that their only company is the audience. And so, we, as the audience, become, you know, we have to follow it through because nobody else is following it through for her. And so her only company is us, as we watch this film.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We, as the audience, sometimes ask the character, though, we see you scrubbing the red paint off the car, off the house, that hobble that she lives in. How about a can of paint? Why doesn't she just move to the next town over?</s>TILDA SWINTON: But, that would - that's a healthy person, Neal, who suggests that.</s>TILDA SWINTON: She's got red stuff to clean off her hands. That's her deal, you know. She - when she's thumped in the face by the passerby, one of the first things she says is, it's my fault. It's not something that she can paint over. It's something that she has to try and scrape away because it belongs to her. One of the things that's very kind of important in the telling of the story of the upbringing of this child is he - I mean, he's pretty monstrous, let's face it. It's kind of a mother's nightmare. It's - I call it the feel-good film of the year because...</s>TILDA SWINTON: ...those who have children come waltzing out of the cinema, going oh, my kid, we thought he was a problem, but he's nothing compared to that one.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: (Unintelligible).</s>TILDA SWINTON: And those who don't have children, you know, just, you know, all too happy to go home and sleep across the bed. There's this feeling that all his misanthropy and all his violence and all his alienation is that bit worse for her because it's not actually exotic to her. It's absolutely familiar. It's hers. So this red paint is hers. She feels she deserves it. She really feels that she is to blame. And by the way, who can blame her? Because all of us, we don't have to have monstrous children to think that we are responsible for their every action.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: More on, I guarantee you, sales of archery sets will plummet. But the question, as you raise, we debate nature-nurture. The mother is on the edge of both of those horns.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, but that's a - I mean, yes, I've said it's a nightmare and it is. It's not a social commentary, this film. It's, you know, it's a fictional story about people who don't actually exist and were dreamed up by a writer and now envisaged by a filmmaker. But it is about, you know, the grain in the bottom of the oyster that makes the pearl of it is something that we can all encounter. Not even - we don't have to be parents to do it. I mean, we're all children of parents, so we all know how our parents feel responsible for us. It's - really doesn't take much imagination to imagine ourselves there.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller involved in the conversation. Of course we're hearing Tilda Swinton on the line from our bureau in New York. Her most recent picture is "We Need to Talk About Kevin," which is just opening now. Tracy is on the line, calling us from Grand Rapids.</s>TRACY: Hi. Thank you, Tilda. You are an inspiration and a fantastic actress. And very...</s>TILDA SWINTON: Thank you.</s>TRACY: I'm excited to...</s>TILDA SWINTON: Thank you.</s>TRACY: ...talk with you. I was - I first saw "Orlando" about six years ago and was taken away by a female gender-bender role. And I was most moved, and that's why I want to ask you about, is "Julia," the part where you kidnapped the young boy and hold him for ransom, and it's like you fall in love with him in a motherly kind of way. And (unintelligible)</s>TILDA SWINTON: Thank you for mentioning that film. I love that film "Julia," and too few people have seen it. It's wonderful that you love that film.</s>TRACY: Oh, yeah. Thank you very much. And please keep doing what you're doing and - all of your roles that are taking away all of these roles that women seem to keep themselves in.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Thank you, Tracy.</s>TRACY: And thank you.</s>TILDA SWINTON: I'm trying my very hardest. Thank you. Happy new year.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Tracy pointed out, too - you said too few people have seen the film "Julia." As you looked at this film, I know it's not what you do in the process of making the film, but did you sit back and wonder, I wonder why anybody is going to pay 12 bucks to see this?</s>TILDA SWINTON: You know, I'm laughing because that is the very thing my sweetheart said when he put down the first draft.</s>TILDA SWINTON: He's not listening to this because he's back in the hotel, but I'm going to tell him you said that. It's so funny.</s>TILDA SWINTON: He put it down. He said, yeah, it's brilliant. But who on earth is going to want to see this? Well, you know what, miracles happen, and a lot of people seeing this film and wanting to see it, and I'm not best placed to say why. I mean, it has a lot to do with the fact that it's made by an extremely inspired filmmaker. But I think there's something about the subject. As I say, I mean, I was being semi-flippant when I called it the feel-good film of the year. I think there is something that it gets right that the Greeks got right about catharsis.</s>TILDA SWINTON: There's something about it putting up there our worst fears and there's something about the position the woman is in which is so beyond any kind of nightmare you can imagine that's kind of good to look at. I think there's something really great about looking at the worst-case scenario played out. The other I would say, though, is - and again, I don't want this to sound flippant, 'cause I mean it most sincerely. The film is a love story. Truly, it's about love. The subject of the film is love. Really, I mean, apart from the fact that it's a story about boy getting mom, it's also about the nature of loving, the practice of loving.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Eva has this terrible predicament, which is that she gives birth - she's pregnant and then she gives birth and this miracle drug called maternal instinct doesn't start to kick in. And I'm, you know, fortunately, a mother for whom the drug did kick in. I'm happy to say it because the work of having children - and I speak of someone who had twins, so I kind of know the deal - the work of having children, particularly in those first months and early years is so intense, as we all know, that if you - can you imagine doing it without that drug?</s>TILDA SWINTON: I mean, that's what the drug is for. It's for...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, we hear your character say, mommy was happy and then little Kevin came along.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Yeah. She says it. She actually - because she's got no, you know, brake pads on her brakes. She's like screeching to a halt all the time. She has nothing to get her through. She does not love this child. The child does not love her, and she's hating being a mother. And I have to say, Neal, I mean, I've known women in this predicament. I think that - I'm happy to say that I'm not one of them, but I've known and still know women in that predicament. I know children who are the children of mothers who've been in that situation and it is almost never spoken about which, of course, by the way, is another answer to first question, what drew me to this subject?</s>TILDA SWINTON: I was aware when I read the book that Lionel Shriver, who wrote this book, is looking at this subject, this taboo subject, which is the assumption that maternal instinct is inevitable is just not true. It is possible to go through that door into parenthood and, you know, the drug to not kick in. And we all know how prevalent it is and yet nobody really seems to talk about it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tilda Swinton, the best of luck with "We Need to Talk About Kevin." Thank you so much for coming in.</s>TILDA SWINTON: Thank you, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tilda Swinton joined us from our bureau in New York. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

A federal advisory board has urged scientific journals not to publish the research from two labs that have developed an airborne flu virus. Microbiologist Vincent Racaniello discusses why the move sets a bad precedent. Biosecurity expert D.A. Henderson talks about the risks of publishing the research.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Our next story is about ferrets, those furry little animals that some people keep as pets but which some scientists use as guinea pigs, and that's the story that interests us because experiments using ferrets to study how the bird flu spreads has caused quite a commotion in the world of science.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Two labs, one in the Netherlands and the other in Wisconsin, say they have developed a deadly strain of bird flu virus that can be transmitted through the air from ferret to ferret, something that couldn't happen easily before. A federal advisory board has urged the journals Science and Nature not to publish the details, all the details of the research.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Members of the advisory board and some biosecurity experts are concerned that the research could fall into the wrong hands. Other researchers disagree, and they call the studies too valuable not to share with the scientific community.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So we're going to talk about that this hour, our number 1-800-989-8255, sort of have a debate between two sides of the issue, and let me introduce my guests. Dr. D.A. Henderson is professor of public health and medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. He's also a distinguished scholar at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He led the successful worldwide effort to eradicate smallpox in the '70s and directed the U.S. Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness after the deadly anthrax letter attacks. He joins us from WYPR in Baltimore. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Henderson.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: DR. D.A. HENDERSON: Very happy to be with you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. Dr. Vincent Racaniello is a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia, and he is here in our New York bureau. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: DR. VINCENT RACANIELLO: Thank you for pronouncing the name right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, we try. I pronounce them so badly so many times that even my own name gets wrong. Let me begin with you, Dr. Racaniello. What do we know about this virus developed by the two labs?</s>RACANIELLO: So we know little because it hasn't been published. That's important to point out at the outset. What we know is what we've heard through stories, and that is that the scientists in the Netherlands took avian H5N1 influenza virus strain, which is lethal in ferrets but is not transmitted, and they passed it from ferret to ferret until they obtained an isolate that could then be transported through the air from one ferret to another, from a ferret in one cage to an uninfected ferret in another.</s>RACANIELLO: And then they identified the genetic changes that occur to accompany that process.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And you say that we don't know that much about it because stuff has been held back.</s>RACANIELLO: That's right.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: What has been held back?</s>RACANIELLO: So the methods, how exactly they passed the virus from ferret to ferret, what types of ferret, how many ferrets, how much virus they put in and most importantly the genetic changes that occurred when the virus was able to pass from one ferret to the other.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And why would you need to know those things?</s>RACANIELLO: So we don't understand why the H5N1 viruses do not transmit among people, and this kind of experiment gets at that, why the virus is not able to be transmitted. We can't do that experiment in people, obviously, so we use an animal model, which is the ferret.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson, you believe it was the correct call to hold back that data.</s>HENDERSON: I do believe it was, no question about it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Tell us why.</s>HENDERSON: I think we're dealing here with a very serious organism, which if indeed it did spread well among people and killed as many people as it has to date, occurring as individual cases or small groups of cases, and that is a death rate of more than 50 percent, we would have a real disaster on our hands.</s>HENDERSON: So how this organism spreads is important, but once it is - the information is made widely available, I think the fear is that this will be a point of experiment for a number of people, and we have to worry about an accident in a laboratory, release, escape by some means.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Racaniello?</s>RACANIELLO: So this is a common misconception about H5N1 avian influenza, that it's highly lethal. The number of 50 percent lethality is quoted widely. What that means is half of the 600 people who have been admitted to hospitals die. But we don't know how many people have been infected, and there is some good evidence that many more people have been infected without being sick.</s>RACANIELLO: And so that would make the virus much less scary than everyone thinks it is.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson?</s>HENDERSON: Well, wait.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Go ahead, respond. I'm giving you a chance, go ahead.</s>HENDERSON: OK, with all deference to Dr. Racaniello, there is one study that was done in Thailand, just recently reported, in which it appeared that nine percent of the population did carry antibody against the H5N1. However, since back in 2003, there have been many studies done of patients and the individuals in their family, in their village, contacts in hospitals and so forth. The transmission rate is extremely low.</s>HENDERSON: We're looking at one or two cases, and thus we're seeing - counting the cases that way, and these are more than 20 studies. You would see that the death rate was right around 50 percent, and that seems to hold up from the small outbreak to small outbreak.</s>HENDERSON: The study in Thailand is a distinct exception to anything that's been seen.</s>RACANIELLO: There have been about 17 or 18 such studies done, starting in the late 1990s, when these viruses first infected people up to the present, and there are a handful that show seropositivity in certain populations. I think we need to go into rural Asian populations that have contact with poultry and really get at this. Before we do that, we can't say that this virus is 50 percent lethal.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson, if there is so much concern on your part and the part of others about the outcome of this research, why was this study given the go-ahead to begin with if it might have turned out this way?</s>HENDERSON: Well, I think decisions with regard to research are usually in the hands of investigators and their institutions. Very rarely is there any imposition on the part of government with regard to what one does or doesn't do with the viruses.</s>HENDERSON: However, I think it's important to point out that there is precedent for a group of scientists to get together and, working with government, impose restrictions on the use of a virus, which was highly lethal and would have an enormous effect if it was - got into the population.</s>HENDERSON: And that pertains to smallpox virus, which carries a case fatality rate, death rate of about 30 percent. Most of the population of the world now, roughly 75 percent, are fully susceptible to it. We don't really have enough vaccine to control it, and the concern was that if it got out, began to spread, we'd have a hard job controlling it.</s>HENDERSON: It was felt to be serious enough that it was decided that only two laboratories would be allowed to work with the virus. And those two laboratories, one in Moscow, one in Atlanta, two laboratories with a history of working with it, and secondly that any protocols that they wished to implement, studies, would have to pass muster with an international group of scientists in regard to the need for doing it and risk and so forth. Both are working in high-security laboratories. Now, that provision has been in place more - really more than 10 years, and it is still being adhered to today.</s>HENDERSON: Now this is not to suggest that H5N1 would be handled in the same way, there are different conditions here, but what has been established is a precedent where there are a group of scientists and governments who decide that this is too serious a virus or organism to be circulating, and we should keep this under the closest of supervision.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Racaniello?</s>RACANIELLO: It's clear in this post-9/11, post-anthrax situation that we need to regulate in some way experiments that are perceived as dangerous. You have to always balance the danger imposed by an experiment versus restricting publication. Science works best when information is freely exchanged.</s>RACANIELLO: In my view, the science in this case does not support the view that this is a dangerous experiment to release information about. It's not the one to set the precedent going forward.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I recall back in 1974 when genetic engineering was in its infancy, and the tools were being developed, there was the Asilomar Conference. I'm sure - you're shaking your head, you remember.</s>RACANIELLO: Correct.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And scientists got together to discuss whether this brave new world of genetic engineering would creep out of the laboratory uncontrollably, and they voluntarily stopped their research while they had this discussion. Would something like that be workable in this situation?</s>RACANIELLO: So I started my work with recombinant DNA just at that time. I remember it well. And many scientists got together and said wait, this may be dangerous, let's talk about it, far more scientists than are on the NSABB, for example, the board that is intervening in the H5N1 studies.</s>RACANIELLO: So I think this would be a great idea to talk about science, to get a very wide community of scientists together and talk about what are the dangers, what kinds of experiments do we have to restrict, and which do we have to restrict publication of. I don't think this is the example to set the precedent for that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: No. Dr. Henderson?</s>HENDERSON: I would be supportive of this with one exception. I don't see this, at this point, being a time to look at the possibility of working with any virus and under any circumstances. I think the smallpox virus situation is what we call an outlier, an extreme situation. In the case of the H5N1, as they say, I think we have a difference of opinion on what the case fatality rate is, but it certainly looks to me from the 20 or so studies been done that it's about 50 percent. It is now been demonstrated to be able to be transmitted from ferret to ferret.</s>HENDERSON: There's a belief that that may have application in humans that it could be transmitted from human to human by aerosol. If we had a release of this mutant virus into the air and it was able to be transmitted, as appears it can be transmitted at least to some degree, we, I think, are taking a real risk. Were it to escape, I don't see anyway by which you can control it. We could control smallpox. If a smallpox escaped from a laboratory, we have the vaccine. We could control it. So it poses less of a threat in terms of transmission and less of a case fatality rate than does H5N1.</s>HENDERSON: But H5N1 is in the outer limits of the spectrum, and the question is: Are we willing to go through experiments to make the virus, a mutant virus available to a number of different laboratories, to risk the possible escape from the laboratory of that virus, or are we going to control it much more severely and hold the data and maybe have the discussion? But keep the discussion focused on an agent which potentially is now, I think, many agree, potentially a catastrophic virus.</s>RACANIELLO: I think there is no reason to assume that this virus will transmit among humans based on the ferret experiments. Ferrets have been shown to be wrong over and over. The 2009 swine-origin virus, when it first emerged, was put into ferrets. It was highly lethal and deadly. Everyone warned that this would be a bad virus. It turned out to be milder than we think. So I think that that's not a good argument to use if we are really worried about H5N1 spreading. And I think it's been around a long enough time, it's infected enough people to be able to acquire that capability. If we're really worried, we should stockpile antivirals, which are known to inhibit viral replication and perhaps even a vaccine.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Talking - and the debate about whether some research with ferrets and the spread of bird flu among them should be totally released in two journals, Science and Nature. My guests are Dr. D.A. Henderson, Dr. Vincent Racaniello. Our number, 1-800-989-8255. Some questions coming in on Twitter. You can also tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. Thebrownword(ph) wants to know how much of this info has already been sort of WikiLeaked, published on the Internet? How much could a scientist guess about what has happened?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, we know that if you pass the virus in ferrets, you can make a transmissible form, and that's a relatively easy experiment to do. So that's out. And the next step to knowing the sequence is really easily obtained.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So that - you're saying that hiding the details really doesn't matter.</s>RACANIELLO: That's right. I don't think it's of any effect at all.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson?</s>HENDERSON: Well, I think the virus that has been involved here with the transmission experiments, we do not know what the genetic character of it is. We can suppose that we have not some knowledge of it, but we don't know this for sure. I'm sure this will be in the paper. I think there are other factors on this that I would think we would do better, at this time, to say stop and let's talk about it and let's not plunge on. Meanwhile, what I think we ought to be doing is developing a much larger capacity to produce influenza vaccine than we now have, which we need anyway, for - in - with other pandemics, which we know we can expect.</s>HENDERSON: And that we look to advances - the science and the vaccine technology so that we have a vaccine that is more broadly protective and for a longer period of time. And we could put a good deal of money into that and a good deal of scientific work and, I think, have something which would be a value irrespective of whether it is needed for H5N1, it is needed generally for other vaccine strains.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You know, we are in our 21st year of SCIENCE FRIDAY. Every single year, I could take Dr. Henderson, I could take your statement and play it going back 20 years.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We need to develop an alternative method of making vaccines, yada yada yada, and we should do something and, you know, something every - it's always 30 years away, like nuclear fusion or something. It's developing a new way to make these vaccines. Dr. Racaniello?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, it's being worked on. There are very promising alternative vaccines, for example, made in plants.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right.</s>RACANIELLO: And within five years, the clinical trials with those will be done, and they can be made very rapidly within weeks of a new virus emerging. So I think it's going to be less than 20 or 30 years.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You agree, Dr. Henderson?</s>HENDERSON: I do indeed, and I would say, even now, we're producing influenza vaccine and tissue cell culture rather than in eggs. We see ways by which it could be - the antigenicity can be broadened. And I think we can get a much better vaccine. We're already on the way, but we have not addressed this as a serious matter, that is to really move ahead on it. And I can say that with some feeling because it was 2006 that we made a strong pitch to put more money into vaccine production. $200 million was made available to some four different laboratories. That was later raised to $2 billion to speed the process along, plus the product has not been outstanding - could be a lot more done. And I think we need to press on.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. We're going to take a break, come back and continue the debate, your discussions. Your questions are welcomed. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us, @scifri, also go to our Facebook page at SCIFRI and our website at sciencefriday.com. Talking with Dr. Vincent Racaniello and Dr. D.A. Henderson. 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 this hour about two bird flu studies that may not be published in the fall due to security concerns. Talking with Dr. Vincent Racaniello, professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, and Dr. D.A. Henderson, professor of public health and medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Lots of - what was the - let me just get - bring us up to date. What is the status of those studies? Are they being just held up, the details?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, my understanding is that journals are negotiating with the NSABB to determine exactly how the papers will be phrased.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Raul(ph) in Columbia, South Carolina. Hi, Raul.</s>RAUL: Hi. I had a question regarding the leaking the details of the study. So science says that it wants this information to be open and that perhaps specific details of the study should be distributed within a particular group of approved scientists. But how exactly do you create those (technical difficulty) for – who is an approved scientist? How do you evaluate who's trustworthy? Does someone coming from an academic institution, such as Duke or Harvard, does that just immediately make them eligible to receive information? Is there some sort of test that we have to give to ensure that the people who receive this information are trustworthy? How do you create those guidelines and evaluate who can receive this information?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson, you want to tackle that?</s>RAUL: Sorry, what?</s>HENDERSON: Well, I think that is a real problem, and I think the more that this information is disseminated even to - even a small whatever arbitrarily limited group is there, there's going to be - it's a challenge, and more people are going to be involved in experimenting. And I think there's no question about it. Scientists are curious people, and this is set out as a real challenge. I think what is needed is for the science community to be fully educated as to what the real risk is here.</s>HENDERSON: If the real risk is, as I perceived it and I know a number of my colleagues do, this is a virus that we shouldn't really be experimenting with, even - except under the most rigid circumstances of safety. So one mistake in one laboratory and one escape with the pace that influenza normally spreads, you don't have a chance of stopping it. And we've looked at this again and again. I've been involved with the most recent epidemic, 207 – 2007 back in 1957, we tried to stop or contain outbreaks of influenza, and it was just impossible. It was beyond you before you could really do anything about it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Racaniello?</s>RACANIELLO: I fully appreciate the need for virologists to be educated about biosecurity, and I also would like the biosecurity specialists to be educated about the science underpinning our views on this. And again, the science says that this is not a large threat, the use of ferrets, the natural course of the disease, not being transmissible, the wrong case fatality ratio, all of this is something you need to consider beyond just worrying about someone nefarious getting hold of this information.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So here, you're saying there's a dispute between microbiologists who actually work with the viruses and epidemiologists who study the spreads of diseases. Is there a disconnect you're saying?</s>RACANIELLO: So I have talked with many influenza virologists about it, and they are, to the number, all in favor of releasing this information. The caution is being raised by epidemiologists and biosecurity experts, which is, of course, their job to do so. So there - yes, there is some kind of disconnect, and they have to get together and talk about this.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Henderson, do you think you could modify your views a bit if you spoke more with them or are you pretty set in the way you believe?</s>HENDERSON: Well, I - it sounds to me like maybe Dr. Racaniello is pretty set on the way things he believes in this case. And I think we're looking at it, yes, in different ways, but I think there are a number of virologists who are fully in accord with what I've been talking about. And there a number of virologists who have been very supportive of the restrictions that have been imposed on smallpox. At the same time, I think there is a concern here and the public health concern ultimately, that is our concern, the health of the public.</s>HENDERSON: And what is worrisome is not necessarily that you have somebody with malicious intent, but that you have an experiment done and in which in all good faith proper measures are taken and an escape occurs. This has happened before. It will happen again. And so that at this point in time, I think Doctor Racaniello was right. I think what we do is stop where we are, right now. And we had that dialogue, or we had that discussion about the - among the people concerned as to where we go from here. But meanwhile, I would say, I don't think it would be wise to publish it. And I would say, let's have the discussion as he suggests.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How quickly could - if you've now just decoded the virus, how quickly can you make a vaccine for it in advance of any other research that you might?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, if you make an egg-based vaccine, it takes you six months minimum to that. If we make a - but the other vaccines which would be quicker to plant, based ones, as I mentioned, they're faster, but they're still experimental. So it's still a long time, and we're always behind the curve when a pandemic emerges. We're always very late in hitting that first outbreak with vaccine.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How long did it take for this vaccine to mutate itself - the virus to mutate between the ferrets, going back and forth?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, according to what we've read in science, it took 10 ferret-to-ferret passes. So you pass it - you infect the ferret. You harvest what the ferret makes. You infect another ferret. You do that 10 times.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So you manually have to do the infection. And by the 10th time, they were infecting each other?</s>RACANIELLO: By the 10th time, the virus that you got from that 10th ferret, if you then infected a ferret in one cage, that ferret would infect an uninfected animal in a separate cage.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. And ferrets have generally been used as models for human?</s>RACANIELLO: Yes. For influenza, they are very good models because they do a lot of the things that we do when we get flu. They sneeze and cough and get a fever and so forth.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So then, what is wrong with Doctor Henderson's reading here? If they can - if ferrets can pass it easily between them - the two of them, and they're good models for humans, why are they not good models for human-to-human transmission?</s>RACANIELLO: Well, the key there is the word model. It doesn't tell you everything that you want to know about human infection. As I referred to earlier, there are many occasions where a virus that does X in people, doesn't do the same thing in ferrets. Plus, we have this long experience with human infection with H5N1, and it simply has not transmitted, except it infects people that have contact with sick birds, for example. So I think all of that information argues against that virus being able to transmit in people.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: On the other hand, do you think you microbiologists might stop, as Doctor Henderson says he might think about, and have a conversation first about...</s>RACANIELLO: He - this is a good idea. I think, instead of publishing a watered down version of this paper, just stop. Don't publish anything and have this discussion. That would be fine. I think it's a travesty to publish a paper which doesn't allow anyone else to reproduce the results.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. And you'd go for that, too, Dr. Henderson?</s>HENDERSON: Well, I think, yes. I think this makes sense. But I think it's a little more than passage from ferret to ferret. If I understand the studies that were done, there was one set of passages which had became more transmissible. There was another passage which was not successful. One would - might assume that there are differences between the two viruses that emerged. And the differences between the virus that we're looking at with regard to the virus that caused the transmission and the - its beginning parent, these are studies that - and information's needed. I think it's not quite so simple as just passing it from ferret to ferret. And anybody is likely to do it. I think that there are some other problems here. And I think we need to have a hard look. And I think a varied - you got to have some sort of group has to look at it. If you can't make a huge group looking at it and handling it, what you're looking at is a small group making some decisions. But I think the penalty we pay if we make a mistake could be very high, indeed. And maybe we're...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But you - but then, again, you have no concrete suggestion of how to choose that group of people.</s>HENDERSON: It's going to have to be arbitrarily selected. There's never doubt about it. There's no other way to do it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. All right. We're going to have to leave. This is quite interesting. I want to thank both of you for taking time to be with us. Maybe we found some common ground here. And maybe there will be something - somewhere in between where you folks will get together and come up with a solution. DA Henderson is professor of public health and medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, also a distinguished scholar at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. And Doctor Vincent Racaniello is professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University here in New York. Thank you, gentlemen.</s>RACANIELLO: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you for taking time to be with us.</s>HENDERSON: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And have a happy New Year.

Some Korea experts question the wisdom of a second summit meeting, planned for this month between president Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The U.S. and North Korea are preparing for a second summit meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It will take place in Vietnam at the end of this month. Some experts doubt Kim is serious about giving up his nuclear weapons and question the wisdom of another summit. NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports from Seoul about what North Korea is expected to bring to the negotiating table and what it might be worth.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: After months of deadlock since the first Trump-Kim summit, Kim Jong Un restated his commitment to denuclearize in a televised New Year's address.</s>SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG UN: (Through interpreter) We declared at home and abroad that we would neither make and test nuclear weapons any longer nor use and proliferate them. And we have taken various practical measures to that end.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Kim appeared to be offering to freeze his nuclear weapons programs. Pyongyang hasn't tested a nuclear bomb or missile since late 2017, although experts suspect work on those programs continues. Last year, North Korea partially dismantled a nuclear test site and a rocket launch site. Kim also pledged to his South Korean counterpart to shut down the North's Yongbyon nuclear plant if the U.S. offers an appropriate response. Leif-Eric Easley, an international relations expert at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, says that it's likely that North Korea may offer inspectors access to those sites.</s>LEIF-ERIC EASLEY: But if we actually witness in the coming months an agreement to get inspectors back on the ground in North Korea and to verify that certain facilities are no longer producing weapons-grade material, that would certainly be progress.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Critics argue that those facilities have outlived their usefulness so North Korea is not really giving anything up by dismantling them. Yang Mujin of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul disagrees.</s>YANG MUJIN: (Speaking Korean).</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: North Korea has continuously improved the Yongbyon facilities, he says. And it has produced weapons-grade plutonium and uranium there. I think it accounts for about 50 percent of North Korea's nuclear capabilities.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Experts here seem to agree that North Korea's offerings are not new. They're not complete. They're conditional on what the U.S. gives in return. And it's not even certain that Pyongyang will deliver them as promised. But they're also not insignificant, and - they're sure better than a diplomatic stalemate or the threat of war. Park Jiyoung, a nuclear expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a Seoul-based think tank, advises folks to keep expectations for the summit low.</s>PARK JIYOUNG: (Through interpreter) If North Korea needs to take 100 steps to denuclearize, what is being discussed now seems to be only the first two or three steps.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Some observers are not so concerned with what the North's offerings are worth.</s>LEIF-ERIC EASLEY: My concern is, for the benefit derived from this process with North Korea, what are the costs?</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: If, for example, Ewha University's Leif-Eric Easley says, the U.S. responds by lifting sanctions on North Korea, ignoring its human rights situation or selling out the U.S. as South Korean or Japanese allies, then...</s>LEIF-ERIC EASLEY: I think that those costs may outweigh benefits. And that's something that we have to watch very carefully.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: There are appropriate things the U.S. can offer in return, Asan Institute's Park Jiyoung says, such as opening a liaison office in Pyongyang or allowing more humanitarian aid into North Korea. Both of these steps are easily reversible, and the U.S. has already pledged to allow more aid in anyway.</s>ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Anthony Kuhn, NPR News, Seoul.

Venezuela's opposition leader is rallying thousands of his countrymen to bring in U.S. humanitarian aid massed just over the Colombian border, setting up a confrontation with President Nicolas Maduro.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now to Venezuela and a showdown over hundreds of tons of U.S. food aid that's parked in neighboring Colombia waiting for distribution. The opposition leader, Juan Guaido, is calling on his army of volunteers to bring the food and medicine into the country. President Nicolas Maduro vows to use the military to block the aid, which he calls a pretext for a U.S. invasion. NPR's Eyder Peralta is with us now from the capital, Caracas.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Eyder, thanks so much for joining us.</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So Guaido has said he's going to start moving the aid into Venezuela next Saturday, February 23. How is that going to happen?</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: So right now, we only have a rough idea. What we know is that 400,000 Venezuelans have signed up to help him do this. Yesterday, at one of the organizing meetings I went to, one of the leaders said that Guaido was planning to lead a convoy from Caracas to the border. And that's usually a 13-hour drive. But Guaido is planning to do that as a 30-day trek. He'll be stopping at cities along the way. And he's also called for nationwide protests on the 23. And he's also asked for people to gather on the Colombian side of the border.</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: What happens when he gets the border, if he's able to make it that far - that we're not sure about. I mean, there are a number of places to cross on foot. But Maduro has physically blocked one of the big bridges coming into Venezuela. The hope that the opposition has expressed is that the military abandons Maduro and allows the aid to come in.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, to that end, though, Maduro says he's sending the army to keep the food out. And that obviously sets the stage for what could be a confrontation that could easily turn violent. So what are people saying about that - the people that you've been talking to? What are they saying about that?</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: I've heard mixed emotions - anxiety, fear, hope. But the kind of overwhelming feeling I've heard is that Venezuelans are sick of the situation, and they want something to change. I was at a big slum outside Caracas yesterday. And it used to be hugely supportive of the government, but things have changed. I spoke to one woman, Dulce Perez (ph). She's 38. Her mother is sick. She doesn't know how or where she'll get the medicine she needs. And let's listen to a bit of what she told me.</s>DULCE PEREZ: People die every day here because no have medicine, no hospital, no - where no water - not anything.</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: So she says this government is the worst thing to happen to Venezuela. People seem to feel that they're, like, at a point whatever comes next is better than what they're living right now.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And U.S. sanctions against Venezuela mean that Venezuela is being denied the billion dollars in cash that the U.S. would otherwise pay for oil each month. Is that being felt on the streets?</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: It is. Lines for goods here had gotten a little shorter. And now they're starting to get longer. It's hard to find cash. Power outages have also become constant. The government is very clearly running low on cash. They usually give their loyalists boxes of food. And people I've spoken to say they haven't gotten the box since December.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And it's been nearly four weeks since Guaido was recognized internationally as Venezuela's legitimate interim leader, yet Maduro remains in power. What has the government been saying?</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: So Maduro is on TV, on state television every day. And he says this aid is a Trojan horse, and it's a precursor to an American invasion. And that's what he told his generals. He asked for them to draw up a plan to deal with people he called traitors and with what he said were enemy invaders. And he asked his generals to cause as much damage as possible. At the same time, though, he has also said that he is open to dialogue with the opposition or with the U.S. But his stance on not allowing the aid to come into the country seems hardened.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is NPR's Eyder Peralta in Caracas, Venezuela.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Eyder, thank you.</s>EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.

The demonstrations that spread across the Middle East in 2011 unseated leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Yemen's president has agreed to step down and violence continues in Syria. NPR foreign correspondents discuss developments since the Arab Spring and what they mean for the region and the U.S. Read and hear stories from the Morning Edition series, The Arab Spring: One Year Later.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. The Arab Spring has been both smaller and bigger than you might think. Uprisings ousted autocrats in just three of the 22 Arab countries, but profound shifts are underway everywhere.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Change appears imminent in Yemen and some believe may now be inevitable in Syria. Reactions elsewhere range from reform to repression. Over the past week or so, NPR correspondents Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Deborah Amos and Kelly McEvers filed a series of stories on what's changed since protest erupted and spread a year ago.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you followed their reporting and have questions, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email is 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, actress Tilda Swinton on her new film "We Need to Talk about Kevin," but first we begin with Deborah Amos in Rabat, Morocco. And Deb, nice to have you back.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Thank you very much, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: For decades, kings, emirs, presidents for life controlled almost every aspect of public life in the Arab world. As you pointed out in one of your stories, almost all of those rulers remain in power. So what has changed?</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I think what has changed, a couple of things. One, what people call the wall of fear. It is so telling to listen to people, what they're willing to say now on the Web, on their Facebook pages. That is a big change over the last year.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I think the other change in the places where we've had revolutions, people are talking about politics openly now, how to organize, how to motivate, how to move a population through a political party. And even in the places that are still grappling with whether the autocrat stays or goes, people are learning on-the-ground politics in ways that you haven't seen before.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: It is the beginning of a civil society in many of these places that have never had one before, and I think those two facts are extremely important over the next decade for what happens in the Arab world.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And probably no place more important than Egypt. Joining us now from Cairo, NPR foreign correspondent Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. Nice to have you back.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Hello.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Islamist groups in Cairo are celebrating as they look like they have achieved a tremendous electoral success there in the polls, but this is a place that over the past year has changed in so many ways and whose future seems to be so different than it would have seemed 18 months ago.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: It's extraordinary, actually, always coming back to Egypt, because every time you come back the narrative changes so much. And right now in Egypt we're at the tail end of the parliamentary elections for the lower house, and the Muslim Brotherhood, as you mentioned, has won a crushing victory, closely followed by the Salafist Party, the ultraconservative sect of Islam.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: I've spent the day today speaking with various Muslim Brotherhood figures, and it's an interesting time for them, Neal. As one leader told me, we feel like a bird that was trapped and it has been set free. That euphoria, though, is tempered very much, tempered by the enormous responsibility that they're now shouldering.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: After decades as an oppressed opposition party, they are now about to ascend to power in this very volatile, very divided country. There are enormous challenges, many pitfalls. How will the Muslim Brotherhood navigate their relationship, for example, with the military junta that runs the country, that ostensibly wants to cling to power?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: I got a few answers to those questions today, but Egypt is very much in flux. We're only beginning to see how the forces unleashed in this revolution will play out.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And many of those forces unleashed by the demonstrations there in Tahrir Square, demonstrations, well, largely made up, initiated and made up of secular, young, educated Egyptians who may not see themselves represented very much, did very poorly in the elections. Any regrets there?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Well, the groups that kick-started this revolution, as you rightly say, the revolutionaries of Tahrir, have not fared well. They continue in a lot of ways to live in a state of almost perpetual revolution. They feel, and legitimately, that there's still so much more to be done, that the military junta which rules Egypt co-opted the popular uprising and has committed many abuses subsequently.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: But the Egyptian street and many people here are just tired of the constant upheaval, and they see these groups as the culprits. So you have a very odd situation now, where the very people that kick-started what happened here, what Egyptians are so very proud of, this revolution, are now in certain circles being accused of undermining the goals of the revolution.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let me also get back to Deborah Amos. I know you've spent a lot of time in Lebanon. You're now in Morocco, places that haven't changed but have certainly felt the repercussions of change.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, you could certainly say that here. The February 20th movement was an explosion almost a year ago, and within two months the king here responded with a new constitution and new elections. Now for the first time Morocco has an Islamist party leading the government.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: The February 20th movement is not satisfied. They are still on the streets every Sunday in a peaceful protest. We went to one on Sunday and watched them in one of the slums outside of Casablanca, and the idea for them is they keep the pressure up. There really is not an opposition party in this country.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: February 20th, this incoherent, chaotic movement, is it. And they feel that they have to stay on the street every Sunday to pressure the government to bring those promises to fruition.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Incoherent, chaotic movement, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, we could have applied those terms to the opposition in Libya, which nevertheless got itself together enough to succeed in a military revolution obviously supported by NATO air power, but nevertheless to overthrow the 40-year-old dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi and now appears to be going back to disorganized and chaotic.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Yes, I just came back from Libya recently, and it is extremely disorganized and chaotic. In fact, what we're seeing there is almost the beginnings of what could be the partition of the country. In many ways this revolution, which united people in this sense of purpose and overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi, has now divided people because everyone's trying to grapple over what they want the country to look like and what their place in that new country will be.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: And it is divided along sort of regional lines and also tribal lines, and so we are seeing great problems there now because what has evolved, the National Transitional Council is a very weak body, it is also itself very divided, and people are very fed up.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: They're wondering what the next step shall be. So you know, we have protests in Benghazi in the east. We have protests in Misrata. Cities that were so pivotal to the revolution are now saying we are not satisfied with the interim government, and we want elections sooner rather than later.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So be careful what you ask for in some respects. Deborah Amos, though, given the pace of change, there is nothing like going back.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I think there is not anything going back. The place that I've spent the most time covering is Syria, and while we have now - we are in our tenth month of protest, and the statistics are grim, there's been an Arab League monitoring group that's come to Syria. The idea was that they would stop the violence, and they haven't at all. Four hundred people have died since the Arab League monitors arrived.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: However, when you look at the movement there, the political movement on the ground, yet again chaotic, unpredictable, those people cannot go back. The lessons that they've learned over the past 10 months have actually brought people together in various towns. This is very new for Syria.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I think that this is one revolution that will take some time. The army is still on the side of the regime. The elites around President Bashar al-Assad have not cracked. I think that you would find that they would say that of course we can go back. But the truth of the matter is that they can't. This Arab Spring has changed Syria in ways that it cannot return to the status quo.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Deb, you and I have followed affairs in this region for many years. I have to say one change that we've seen is the Arab League itself, the idea that it would have called for foreign intervention in an Arab country, unthinkable, that of course was Libya. The idea that it would send monitors to look at the human rights practices, essentially, of one of its member states and be critical of them, jaw-dropping, just 18 months ago, inconceivable.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Inconceivable, you're absolutely right, and they are feeling their way. This is all new for the Arab League, and you can see that the monitors are very stressed, that they really don't know how to do this. They wander into giant protests. They barge into hospitals.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I think even the Syrian regime that thought that they would be able to control these monitors has not been able to, and the activists on the ground have been taking remarkable videos of certainly unscripted moments as these monitors try to figure out how to do their job.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: This is very new for the Arab League, and I think an interesting development, if they could be some sort of body in the region, it doesn't always have to go to the United Nations. There would be a local organization, the Arab League that could police internally, and that would be a huge step coming out of these revolutions in the last year.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: NPR correspondent Deborah Amos in Rabat, also with us Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, who is with us from Cairo. We're going to get Kelly McEvers on the line from Beirut in just a couple of minutes. We want to hear from you too as well. If you've been following their reporting and have questions a year after the Arab Spring started, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. We'll start with Matthew(ph), Matthew with us from Portage in Michigan.</s>MATTHEW: Hi, Neal, thanks for having me on your show.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks, go ahead please.</s>MATTHEW: Yes, because the Muslim Brotherhood has won such a crushing victory in this first - in the lower house, will they have to ally with the Salafis that have been previously feared by some groups? And I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Matthew, thanks very much. Lourdes, is there going to be a Salafi-Muslim Brotherhood coalition?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: No - I think is the short answer to that. Those are questions that I posed today to various figures of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they were all adamant in saying that they absolutely do not want to have an Islamist coalition. Sometimes we forget that the divisions between Islamists are perhaps greater than the divisions between secular and moderate Islamist organizations or conservative Islamist organizations.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: And so basically what I got across the board was a great deal of competitive talk. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like the Salafists. They were surprised, they said today, by their victory at the polls. They got some 20 to 25 percent. Those numbers are still not final. And they weren't really welcoming that.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: They, as they said to me, consider them to be rivals. They consider them to be part of a different strand of Islam, and they also consider them to be radicals in some sense, and they fear them because they do fear that they're going to push them to take certain actions in Egypt that aren't for the good of Egypt.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Wonders may never cease. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro and Deborah Amos are with us. In a moment we'll talk with Kelly McEvers. She's now based in Beirut but traveled extensively in the Persian Gulf, one area where there has been very different results from the Arab Spring. 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. In her piece "Looking Back at the Arab Spring" for NPR, Deborah Amos began with a clarification. The Arab Spring was misnamed from the start, she says. It was more like a political earthquake than a season of revolt, and the ground is still shaking.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Amos and her other NPR correspondents, including Kelly McEvers and Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, have been reporting on the aftershocks ever since, including uprising, armed responses and tentative steps toward democracy. If you've followed their reporting and have questions, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website, npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Deb Amos is with us from Rabat in Morocco. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro is in Cairo. Kelly McEvers joins us now from Beirut. Nice to have you with us.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Hi.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I wanted to ask you, we've been talking about places like Cairo and like Tripoli, where change has been profound, and in places like Syria, where there appears to be no going back. I know you know some about that too, but I wanted to begin by asking you about the Persian Gulf and the uprising that was underway in Bahrain, which has a majority Shia population but ruled by a Sunni kingdom, and the Sunnis have, well, cracked down.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Yeah, I think you can say that the one Arab uprising that was definitively put down was (unintelligible). You know, you had probably a quarter to a third of the population at one point in the streets, literally hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets calling for reform at first, later calling for the downfall of the regime.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: And one month later you had international intervention of a sort, but it wasn't with the protestors this time, like it was in Libya, but it was with the government. It was troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they rolled into town, and the protests were ended.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: In fact, the monument where the people were protesting was later bulldozed, completely cleared, and even to this day you can't even walk to that square.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In part, you concluded in your story, things did not change in Bahrain because the United States did not wish them to. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, it's an important military asset used in the continuing watch of Iran. And in part, as you mentioned, it is because America's important ally, Saudi Arabia, did not want things to change.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: The U.S. considers Bahrain a really important ally, like you said, because of its strategic position in the Persian Gulf. You know, these are not good times with Iran, and having an ally in that position is a very important thing for the U.S. And of course upsetting Saudi Arabia is not something the U.S. does lightly either.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Saudi Arabia is worried about Iran's expansion. Saudi Arabia believed that any kind of Shiite uprising in a place like Bahrain could be seen as Iranian expansion, Iran of course being majority Shiite.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: But Saudi Arabia probably also didn't want, you know, protests in its own backyard. That was probably what was really going on. Saudi Arabia has its own Shiite population that has been agitating for years. And so keeping the Bahraini uprising down was very important to Saudi Arabia.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Deb Amos, let me turn to you on this point. To some degree what's been dismantled in - less so in Tunisia but very importantly in Egypt, was a pro-American autocrat who kept things the way America liked them, and the United States was allied not necessarily because the United States loved Hosni Mubarak but because stability was important, and stability in the Middle East remains important.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The United States now remains allied with the autocratic regimes in places like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and make no mistake about it.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, but you also have seen in the past couple of weeks reports that the Obama administration is reaching out to the Islamists. I think embassies across the region have been given instructions that we now talk to everybody. And they are having, you know, meet-and-greets with Islamists everywhere.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: What is very interesting to me, being out in the region, is these days when you do go into an American embassy, you find that the political officers there will ask you what do you think is going on.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: They also feel that this is a very new region, and they have to learn how to navigate in this new political landscape. And I think it's going to take a while for the – for any American administration to figure out how to do that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Stephanie(ph), Stephanie on the line from Flagstaff.</s>STEPHANIE: Hi, thank you for taking my call.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure.</s>STEPHANIE: Yes, my question is what role women had, if any, in the Arab Spring. And then - and will these changes in any way in the Arab nations affect women's rights?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, let's turn to you in Cairo.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Well, I think it's an extremely important question, and I think, you know, it depends on which country you're looking at, but across the board I think many women who were involved in the revolution, certainly in Libya, certainly in Egypt, they do feel that they - that it hasn't necessarily empowered them.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Here in Egypt, for example, we've seen, you know, the horrific attacks by members of the security forces against women, the sexual harassment that still continues. And there is a concern with the rise of the Islamists and political Islam, what that will mean for women's rights, enshrined in constitutions and how their rights will be protected across the board.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And so I think there's a real concern that while, you know, these revolutions have been an earthquake, a political earthquake that have sort of - as one analyst told me today, you know, awakened the Arab soul, for women possibly they might not have done the same thing. I think it still remains to be seen exactly how it will play out and how women will be effected by this.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Stephanie, thanks for the call.</s>STEPHANIE: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to - this is Mary, Mary with us from Davis, California.</s>MARY: Yeah, hello, first I'd like to express gratitude for the coverage, particularly on Syria, that I heard on NPR because I think it won't surprise your reporters that even if you have family in Syria, you may not get a single news report from them by them by phone. They won't really dare say anything. So it's just how is the weather kind of talk, conversation.</s>MARY: So I really rely on you, and I wonder if you have any inkling of when foreign reporters will actually be in Syria so we won't have to rely on getting things somehow out and about to Beirut and other places.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Kelly McEvers, in Beirut, part of the agreement the Syrian government signed with the Arab League was to provide foreign reporters access to Syria. As the Arab League monitors have access to Syria, are they following through?</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Not necessarily, no. There's a trickle. Every once in a while there will be a foreign journalist that's allowed a visa into Syria. But for the most part, our requests are denied. Deborah knows this very well too. It's not an easy place to get into. And so yes, we have to report the story from Beirut, from Turkey, from Jordan, sometimes even from Iraq, from all the places, you know, that border Syria.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: And this - yeah, this was one of the elements of the agreement with the Arab League and one of the elements that observers say is not being met.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I have to ask, you went in to do some reporting with going in to Syria surreptitiously - is that going to make it more difficult to go in with the permission of the Syrian government?</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Well, we'll have to ask them, won't we?</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: A lot of people are doing it that way these days. I mean, look, in Syria the interesting thing is there's no Benghazi, there's no sort of area that's held by the rebels. You know, there's no - it doesn't have a half of the country that's being held by the rebels. Even in the early days in Libya, it wasn't quite so cut and dried.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: But, you know, there are small pockets of small neighborhoods in certain cities that may or may not be sort of dominated by protestors or armed groups that claim to be protecting protestors. So this isn't - there really aren't many options. I mean, it's not just that the government doesn't want us to come in, but it's not necessarily safe to go in and cover something that's looking a lot less like a protest movement and a lot more like a conflict.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mary, what kind of family do you have still in Syria?</s>MARY: Well, a great portion of my husband's family, just about everybody, they stayed behind. He was the only one who really left so many years ago. And yeah, it's been frustrating to try to get - you know, and we don't want to put them on the spot if we ask them.</s>MARY: You can hear even the calls being recorded, and even things could be misinterpreted. So you just kind of say, well, how are you, how's the weather, you know, kind of sad.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you don't want to read something into it if they say the weather is good or bad.</s>MARY: Exactly, and even the weather, if they say the wrong thing about the weather, that could be interpreted wrong. So you just don't know what to say.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. We wish your husband's family the best, Mary.</s>MARY: Thanks very much.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Appreciate the phone call. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Bob, Bob with us from Tucson.</s>BOB: Yes, I have a question for your guests. It seems to me that the common - the concept of religious freedom is completely foreign to those people over there, and how can there ever be any success in these reorganizations and whatnot unless the Sunnis and Shiites and Alawites and so forth are free to follow their religious beliefs?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's turn to Deb Amos on that point. You've done a lot of reporting from Lebanon, which is one of the most diverse religious communities in the world.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, it's a complicated question because the truth of the matter is people do somewhat have freedom of religion. They certainly do in Lebanon. Everyone is allowed, all 18 different religious orientations and sects are allowed to practice their religion. And Syria has been, for generations, proud of the mix that is in the country and the fact that you can find a church next to a mosque in almost every community and certainly in the capital. The freedom of religion is not the question. The - it's not true across the Middle East. The problem is in those places where you have a mix, when there's a conflict, it is very easy for an autocrat to use sectarianism, to stir up the divisions between different parts of the population to the autocrat's benefit.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And we've certainly seen that in Syria. I described in the piece I wrote, sectarianism 101, which is you stir up the population as the autocrat, and then you claim you're the only one that can keep the lid on the pot. And that is what we see, you know, in the Syrian's case. And so it is a complex question. I think that Lourdes can also tell us that Egypt also has its difficulties on this question.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I was going to ask about the particular situation of the Coptic Christians there in Egypt. Lourdes?</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Exactly right. I mean, that's been one of the tensest conflicts that have sort of erupted after the revolution. You know, in many ways, people would say - and even some Christians would say that Hosni Mubarak kept a lid on that. And subsequently, we've seen, you know, attacks on Christian communities and conflicts between certain Islamic sects here and the Christians. And that is a real challenge for, you know, countries where there are different religions, different sects, people who follow different paths. And that is one of the, you know, the great challenges, I think, after the revolution. You know, basically, the lid has come off in many of these countries.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: These were autocratic regimes, and they pride stability above all. And that meant, in many ways, keeping all of these conflicts, you know, under the table. They swept it all underground. And now, in the same way that you're seeing people come out and being able to voice their political ideals, you are seeing people voicing some things that are less savory. And these conflicts are coming out to the fore, and there is fear about what it means for minorities, what it means, you know, how are the Christians going to cope, you know, in a government that is dominated by Islamists. It's a very real concern. When many Christians here saw that the Salafists had done well, many Christians that I spoke to said, I want to leave the country. I'm worried. And so it's a very, very real problem.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob, thanks very much for the call. We're talking with Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. You just heard her in Cairo. Kelly McEvers is on the phone with us from Beirut. And Deb Amos is with us from Rabat in Morocco. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Deb, in one of your pieces, you put this in some historical context. This is perhaps the biggest change in the Arab world since the revolutions that shook that part of the world, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. This is 100 years ago.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, one of my favorite quotes is from the head of the history department at American University in Cairo, and he called that the Lawrence of Arabia moment. In some ways, that was also - had some American flavor to it. You know, this was a moment when an American president in that period was talking about self-determination. I think you might look to these revolutions and say they were fueled, in a way, by American technology: Google, Twitter, Facebook. It is a shared value of democracy that is what the demand is on the street. So we actually have some role in what has happened. We happen to be unpopular at the moment, and that is because historically, we have supported dictators because they were better for our foreign policy.</s>DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: But now we are confronted with a different landscape in the Middle East, one that we haven't dealt with before. And I think that is why there is such uncertainty in Washington about what does popular opinion mean. We know what it means in the American context. That leaders do have to listen to what the public wants - not completely, but they do have to listen. And we don't know what that means yet in the Arab world.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, in particular, we don't know what it means in Egypt. Yes, Hosni Mubarak, overthrown; the generals who Hosni Mubarak appointed are still in control in Egypt and very much concerned about their future.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Very much concerned. It's so murky here, I can't even begin to tell you. It's so difficult to find out the strands of power and who controls what and how decisions are made now. And it's all extremely confusing, not only for a reporter like myself who's trying to understand it, but just for the average citizens. One the one hand, they feel very much empowered after the revolution. But on the other hand, so much really hasn't changed. There are still, you know, powers that are beyond their control. One thing though that you do see - and we have seen repeatedly - there is a military junta that is in control, but they have had to cater to public opinion. They have had to make concessions, which was unimaginable before.</s>LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: We've seen throughout the various protests that have happened since the 18 days after, you know, during which Hosni Mubarak was overthrown, that the militaries had to say, OK, we've tried this and people have come out into the streets and so, OK, we won't do that anymore. And that relationship is a very complicated one. They are actually reacting to popular opinion and to popular protest, and that really is a fundamental change in Egypt.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll end with this email from Jane(ph), who writes: It's impressive that NPR's reporters in the countries undergoing change - the Arab Spring - are women. How is it for female reporters to do those - their work in those places? These three and they're three of our very best, happen to be women. There are others involved who are not women. But in any case, Kelly McEvers, you've been to some adventurous places. What's it like to work there?</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: You know, I like to say sometimes it's actually easier to be a woman because even in the most conservative country, we can speak to the women when - where a male reporter can't speak to the women. And, of course, we can speak to the men because they'll always speak to us. And a lot of times, you know, you can sort of be in disguise, you know? You can wrap yourself up in whatever else - anyone else is wearing and kind of blend in better, whether it's at a protest or you're trying to dodge, you know, teargas or sneaking over a border in the middle of the night. So, in some ways, it makes it easier.</s>KELLY MCEVERS, BYLINE: Of course, in other ways, it's not. You know, I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year, and that meant that I couldn't drive, you know? And that meant that, you know - just sort of assumed that I was there with my husband wherever I went. So there's definitely a level of assumptions that are made. But I think, right now, despite the fact that women are facing a lot of challenges as these countries are now, you know, in such upheaval, women have played such a great role, and it's just - it's so fantastic to be out and just (unintelligible) all these women and all these protests.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Kelly McEvers, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Deborah Amos, thanks to you all. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

The Obama administration has laid out billions in cuts to the U.S. military over the next decade. Some say the cuts will weaken the armed forces, while others argue it's time to reconsider the type of military presence the U.S. should maintain. NPR's Tom Bowman describes the proposed cuts and their potential implications for future military operations.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. With all U.S. forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan beginning to wind down, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for a post-Iraq era last week. Yes, there's still a lot of emphasis on special operations troops and drones to strike terrorist targets, but there's a broader shift away from the Middle East and Europe to Asia and the Pacific, a phrase that can be read as code for China.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And yes, budget reductions are part of the package, but the president and his military advisors argue they did not take a smaller number and figure out how to divvy it up but rather started with the various tasks the U.S. military needs to be able to do and then decided how much that's going to cost.</s>So priorities: What does the U.S. military need to be able to do? How should we shift our military balance? 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>Later in the program: Is anything in a politician's life off-limits? Ross Douthat of the New York Times on the Opinion Page this week. But first, NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman joins us here in Studio 3A. Tom, always nice to have you with us.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Hello, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we're a long way from the end in Afghanistan, but is it fair to call this a post-9/11 strategy?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Absolutely. You know, it's interesting - Donald Rumsfeld tried this kind of strategy 10 years ago. He wanted to focus more in the Pacific, wanted to have more of a high-tech military with fewer people, and that of course was overtaken by events. So they're going to try it one more time.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And if there's a headline here, it's that the Army is cut, and let's focus on the Pacific. That's sort of the headline.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And post-Iraq, well, the strategy that the United States adopted in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, counterinsurgency, that's - well, that's been scrubbed.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: It has, and frankly it's the only thing in the strategy that military says we won't be able to do anymore. Here's a quote from the strategy, quote: "U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations." They're basically what we did in Afghanistan, what we did in Iraq, we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to do other things.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And other than that, they pretty much say they can do everything else, right across the board. And it's interesting; they want to have it both ways. They want to say, listen, it's still a strong military, it's the strongest in the world, we can do all these things and cut it by half a trillion dollars over the next decade.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So you're going to have a lot of people on Capitol Hill say wait a minute, if you can cut half a trillion dollars and still do pretty much everything, why not cut more? And the Republicans, of course, and John McCain has already started talking about this a bit, saying listen, you know, we're not sure about this strategy, we think it weakens the Pentagon. So look for those arguments in the coming weeks.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, one of those big arguments is going to revolve around the two-war commitment. The previous strategies all emphasized the ability of the United States - this is the post-Cold War strategy - to be able to fight two major regional conflicts and win at the same time.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Right, and they're kind of fuzzy on that too. If you look at the fine print in the strategy, it basically says we can fight and win against an aggressor in one theater and then in another theater, you know, fight and kind of hold off this aggressor, kind of make sure that, you know, they don't win their - whatever it is, their war or whatever.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And - but when we asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about it, he basically said, hey, listen, we can do more than one thing at once. So they want to kind of have it both ways, I think.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And these are all sort of theoretical, but the examples that were always given is: Could we deal with North Korea and Iran simultaneously?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: He is saying yes.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And he is saying yes. Now, North Korea and Iran may seem like more immediate subjects of U.S. military interest, but clearly the long-term outlook here is China.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly, they're worried about China's military increases. They're worried about, you know, China buying aircraft carriers and more aircraft, war planes and so forth. What are the intentions of China? And they're saying their growing military strength could cause regional friction that could hamper U.S. national security and also the U.S. economy.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So there's going to be a big push in the Pacific region basically, you know, setting up maybe more bases like we've seen in Australia; more Marines are heading that way. More exercises with certain countries in the Pacific - you know, military exchange. You'll see a lot of that in the coming years under this strategy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Now, if it's a Pacific strategy, you need longer range. That means more Navy, more Air Force. With fewer troops needed for places like Iraq and Afghanistan, much less for the Army.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly. The Army will be the big bill payer here. There was a sense the Army would be cut from maybe 560,000 troops to maybe 520. Now it looks like they may go down to 490,000 troops in the Army when the smoke clears in all of this.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And you're right, the investments are going to be more in the Navy and the Air Force in the coming years under this strategy.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There are other tasks that the United States does almost as a matter of routine, and it's hard to think of it that way, but global communications, military communications. Those global positioning satellites, those are military satellites.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The Navy has been the predominate blue-water force, ensuring freedom of navigation through the seven seas since 1945. None of that is going to change.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Absolutely not, and there will be a lot more money on those ISR intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance efforts and drone aircraft and also special operations forces. They want to continue to beef up the Navy SEALs, the Green Berets for the kind of fights in the future, training foreign militaries and also if need be to go in and do what they call direct action.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The United States has been drawing down forces in Europe steadily all through the years, especially since the end of the Cold War, obviously. Is that going to continue?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Yes, you will see more draw-downs in Europe as they move towards this Pacific-Asia strategy. We don't know the numbers yet. That'll all come out in the budget next month. But clearly more reductions in Europe.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We want to get listeners involved in this conversation. As the United States military decides on what it needs to be able to do - well, what does it need to be able to do? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Vance(ph), we'll start with Vance, and Vance is with us from Flagstaff.</s>VANCE: Hi, thanks for taking my call. I'm a former member of the National Guard. I've seen, you know, kind of how the military operates from the inside. But I believe the core mission of the military is to protect the United States, its nations and its interests abroad, and not to provide jobs or even to provide indirect economic aid to other countries.</s>VANCE: So if you can provide that mission, I think they're right on target of saying let's decide what the mission is, what do we need to accomplish, not start with the cuts but start with the needs.</s>VANCE: And we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year just to maintain overseas bases, not even counting the actions those bases take. So to me it's, yeah, you protect the nation, you protect the people, you protect the security interests of the nation abroad, and everything beyond that is extraneous. And I'll take my comments off the air.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Just one clarification, Vance, when you say it's not to provide jobs, do you mean provide jobs in, for example, the U.S. Army or provide jobs for contractors building high-tech weapons?</s>VANCE: I would say either way, and I mean, you're getting into an issue there of systemic change and that as long - we have a current military industrial complex, you know, we'd be foolish to think that that doesn't affect policy, is the money that's made.</s>VANCE: And, you know, the more we go to more, the more these costs - the more we go to war, the more these contractors make. But also, you know, I've heard it say, you know, if you reduce the size of the military, then you're cutting jobs, but I think it's important to remember that the mission of the military is not to be an employer, it's the mission of the private sector to provide jobs. The mission of the military is protect the country and its interests.</s>VANCE: And that needs to be the focus, and if you can do it with a smaller military, I think that's the only responsible thing to do.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Vance, thanks very much for the call, appreciate it. And Tom Bowman, we've already talked about the reductions, principally in the U.S. Army, that are going to be paying for a lot of these cuts. What about the high-tech and those military industrial issues that Vance was talking about? And you go immediately to the biggest, most expensive weapon system ever in the United States military, the F-35.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: That's right. Well, the sense is they will cut back on the number of F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, they will buy. And again, we don't have a number on that yet. That'll come out next month in the budget. But clearly not only cutting the number of Army troops, they'll be cutting across the board, and a lot of these programs, very expensive, high-tech programs. But at this point we don't have a real firm figure on that yet.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And Vance, of course, being a member of the National Guard, it's interesting in the strategy, they're trying to figure out how much mix do they want between active-duty people and National Guard and Reserve people. You could see, in the coming years, a larger role for the National Guard and Reserve as they cut down on the active force. If need be, for whatever reason, they could call National Guard and Reserve to active duty, the president could.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And they're putting that in the strategy here as an important part of this.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, the period to which this is probably most analogous is the end of the Vietnam War, at which point the United States military was, it's fair to say, in shambles. There were rampant drug problems. There was an all-draft army, not all-draft but largely a draftee army. It was fundamentally remade. This is what Colin Powell and that generation of military officers spent their lives doing into the force that ended up being in Europe, the force that fought the first Gulf War, the force that we have today, a very different military.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But the National Guard, after Vietnam, the whole military was restructured so that we could never again fight a war without the National Guard. And there are vital tasks that you cannot accomplish in the U.S. military today - the air-to-air refueling that's vital to long-range military operations of any sort. It sounds unglamorous - the National Guard does a huge amount of that.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Those sorts of tasks are going to be built in even more, so more National Guardsmen are going to be away for longer periods of time?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: It's possible. And again, they're talking about what kind of a mix do we want here. How many - what kind of jobs do we want on active duty? What kind of jobs do we want in the Guard and Reserve? And they're looking at clearly calling upon the Guard and Reserve much more in the future under this strategy.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And the interesting thing about the Guard and Reserve over the past 10 years, these folks have more combat experience than at any time since World War II, all the time they spent over in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they want to basically, you know, jump on the trained Guard people and their experience and make sure they can use that in the future.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Email from David in Fremont, New Hampshire: As a veteran I've been dismayed by the long-term nation-building mission of U.S. forces. Using our troops for fixing up schools and bridges in Iraq while U.S. infrastructure is neglected is just insane.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Our fighting forces should be used for fighting and only when absolutely necessary. I'm glad the president is downsizing the military. And is there any clamor for saying we've just spent enormous amounts of money and time and effort to develop this capability - why are we throwing it away?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Well, they're not really throwing it away. I mean, there's still going to be a pretty good-sized military out there. You know, the Army's going to not quite go back to what it was in the late '90s, when it was roughly 480,000. The lowest number would be 490,000. So there's still quite a few people in the Army.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: The Marine Corps will be cut back a bit but probably not as much as people initially thought. So there's still a pretty good-size military out there. And again, with the Guard and Reserve, that gives you a lot more to work with.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we'll still be spending more than the rest of the world combined.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the president's plan to reshape the military. What do you think the military needs to be able to do now that the war in Iraq is over and Afghanistan is beginning to wind down? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, 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. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took questions over the weekend about President Obama's new 10-year strategy to rework the U.S. military.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: On CBS TV's "Face the Nation," they emphasized the administration's commitment to have a military that can multitask effectively, in spite of major cuts to the budget, something some critics of the plan doubt.</s>So tell us: What do you think the U.S. military needs to be able to do going forward? How should we shift our military balance? 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>So tell us: Tom Bowman is our guest here in Studio 3A. He's NPR's Pentagon correspondent. And let's go next to Nathan(ph), and Nathan's calling us from Berkley.</s>NATHAN: Hello, yeah, I had two issues. One is: How much are we still spending on nuclear readiness? Because that mostly seems completely pointless to me. And otherwise, the question was: What do we want the military to focus on? And I'd say get entirely out of the Indian Ocean. And if, you know, the Pacific is where things are happening, well, that doesn't mean increase the Pacific. I mean, just use the remaining resources on the Pacific.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Nathan, thanks very much. The nuclear deterrence, Tom Bowman, that's set pretty much by the agreements with Russia - excuse me, going back to the old days - and that's unlikely to change as a result of this budget.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Well, they are saying in the strategy that it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force. And they're calling for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the inventory. So clearly they're looking at some cost savings there.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: I don't have a figure right now of exactly how much we spent on nuclear capability, but they're looking at reducing that. And as far as the Indian Ocean, we had that carrier there, the John Stennis, which picked up the Iranian fishermen who were being held captive by pirates.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: The reason the John Stennis was in the area, was in the Arabian Sea to support operations in Afghanistan, you know, flight operations and bombing targets there. So that's not going to end anytime soon. The sense is they'll, of course, turn over responsibility to the Afghans at the end of 2014.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So it's unlikely you're going to see anyone leave the Arabian Sea before then. They're going to always have a carrier there doing flight operations from the Arabian Sea.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: There's also the U.S. operations in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa there. That's important for operating drones, for example, on places like Yemen and Somalia.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the base at Diego Garcia, the depopulated atoll almost nowhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean that's used for any number of purposes, refueling for one thing, to get to the Persian Gulf.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Right, including B-52 bombers where they're - you know, during some of the wars of the past decade, as well.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Email from Joe(ph): Will cyberintelligence be expanded?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Yes, they make a great point in this strategy of beefing up cyber-capability. And of course, China is quite well-versed on this. And that's one of the concerns they have about China is that China's working cyberwarfare issues quite a bit over the past number of years.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So that's when you get into some of the high-tech things they'll be doing in the future, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, drones, et cetera. Cyberwarfare is a big part of that, as well.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can go next to - this is Michael(ph), Michael with us from Gainesville.</s>MICHAEL: Good afternoon, gentlemen, appreciate the conversation. I would like to compliment that the discussion on the Pentagon budget is open finally. It's been a while before - that it's been so well-protected. By my question would be: Since this conversation is open now, why not look at some of the revenue that providing defense should be able to provide?</s>MICHAEL: For example, it's understood out there that the subsidy for gasoline is $1 a gallon to protect the shipping lanes. Why not have some kind of a tax on shippers - I know it would get passed through to the consumer - but some kind of a tax to provide some revenue for the Navy? Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Way to get some income out of this. I'm not sure how exactly that would work, Tom Bowman, but...</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Well, I mean, one of the concerns in the military is that the military is being the policeman of the world and providing safe passage for all the oil that's being sent all around the world, everywhere from Europe to China. So maybe that's something they can consider at the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill to come up with a little money to fund the Pentagon budget.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A Strait of Hormuz tax, perhaps.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly right, a little toll booth there.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Kenneth(ph), Kenneth with us from San Rafael in California.</s>KENNETH: Hi, I think that the idea of the mission all over the world is: A, ridiculous; B, we are part of an international community, and we do not have to be the policeman of the world. I think our core mission is to protect the territory of the U.S., the airspace of the U.S. and to help some allies who really functionally can't.</s>KENNETH: But in this day and age, there aren't any allies who functionally can't take care of themselves. I think this whole thing is a huge rip-off of the American people. We have fought so many wars since World War II that were totally unnecessary, and it really is disgusting to hear this conversation go in the direction we're going without looking at the basic premise of what do we really have to do, what are our real threats.</s>KENNETH: North Korea isn't a real threat. It's not going anywhere. It's not going to bomb anybody. It'll make a lot of noise. It's not - the place could be leveled within a couple of hours with the push of a couple of computer buttons to, you know, four feet above the ground. That's true of Iran, as well.</s>KENNETH: And you're not going to bomb China, and you're not going to go to war with China. China's winning the economic war, and that's the war we have to be playing. When we throw $800 billion literally out the window, we're going to go down the way, you know, Rome went down. And it's disgusting that we don't open the conversation this far.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, Kenneth. And I have to say, of those running for president, Ron Paul, the former Libertarian candidate, is one person who might echo some of the things that Kenneth has said. But for the most part, Tom, as you look in Congress, they're talking about marginal cuts, maybe double is the biggest number I've heard, of the half-trillion that the president has already proposed, doubling that but nothing beyond that.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: No, I don't think so. And what Kenneth raises, you know, that sentiment clearly is out there and growing, that with the economy the way it is now, with so many unemployed, the amount of money being spent in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, people are saying what are we doing it for.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: And he raises a very good point about China. While the U.S. has been fighting for the past decade, China's been running around the world buying up a lot of real estate, you know...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oil rights, among other things.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Oil rights and also, as many people maybe don't know, they have a copper mine they're working in Afghanistan right now while the U.S. is fighting there. China is trying to make a little bit of money. So that's a huge concern that people in the Pentagon have an elsewhere in the United States, that China's been - is the greatest beneficiary of the U.S. focus on counterinsurgency fights during the past decade.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Then there are countries like Vietnam, Borneo, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, all of whom very concerned about China - throw Australia and New Zealand in there, as well - and its claims to a huge expanse of the South China Sea.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly, and that's one of the concerns in the Pentagon is what is China looking for, what is their game plan. And as it mentions in the strategy here, there could be regional friction in the coming years. It could affect U.S. economy or U.S. national security, and you're right. I mean, is - do they consider the South China Sea sort of their lake, so to speak?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yes, they do.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So that's clearly going to be concern with some of the U.S. allies, some of the U.S. friends and so forth and people the U.S. is trying to work with in the future. So again, that's why the focus is in the Pacific. What are China's aims? Where are they heading? Are they going to be an ally, a rival or, you know, maybe a little bit of both?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to - this is David, David with us from Fresno.</s>DAVID: Hello, yes, I believe that the danger of spending so much on military is that it makes our country less secure. Because we have these military capabilities, we don't really push the diplomatic option. Instead, we almost always resolve problems militarily. We could do more diplomatically with Iran to get them to stop building their nuclear weapons.</s>DAVID: And even if they did, our own military tells us that in the past, we've dealt with countries - Russia and China - that were far more capable militarily, and we were able to negotiate with them, deal with them diplomatically. By having this large military, we're roaming around on the other side of the globe, in China's backyard. We're basically antagonizing them.</s>DAVID: So if a war ever breaks out between the U.S. and China, it'll largely be because we're meddling in other people's backyard. And the Soviets have done the same - or not the Soviets, forgive me, the Russians...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I made the same mistake earlier, David, don't worry about it.</s>DAVID: The Russians have brought up the same issue. You know, we finished the Cold War, we naive citizens were hoping that we'd be able to get along with the Russians, and what do we do? We put a missile defense system or propose to right in their backyard with the bogus notion that it was going to be aimed against Iran.</s>DAVID: Of course the Russians aren't stupid. They know it's aimed against them. And the reason we do all these things...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: David, I do have to stop you - I do have to stop you there. The missile defense system that was proposed for Eastern Europe was clearly not aimed at Russia. It was not capable of putting any serious dent in any kind of Russian launch and was never intended to do that. It was aimed at Iran. Whether that was a wise decision or not, well, that's debatable. But getting back to the point, he does make the broader point, Tom. If you've got a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. There is that aspect to it.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly. And that's been a problem for a long time, maybe since the 1950s or so. When you put so much more money in the Pentagon as opposed to the State Department and you look at something like U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Information Agency, USIA, went away - the United States Agency for International Development is a shadow of what it used to be. They're all - it's basically a contracting agency now.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: So former Defense Secretary Bob Gates would talk about this that, you know, you need more people in the State Department. You can't just do everything militarily. That's a real concern out there, even in the Pentagon.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This email from Joan(ph) in Chester, Pennsylvania, reflects that. We need to rely less on military means and more on diplomatic skills, develop and rely for that on jobs. And again, those budgets are coming down. This email from Teresa(ph) in Alabama. Please clarify for me, are we talking about real cuts in the planned long-range expenses or just cuts in the planned growth of the budget?</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Well, initially, the - it would go down - the budget would go down, and then over the years, it would only rise by inflation. So in some respects, it is sort of - the budget will still rise by inflation. It just won't rise as much as it did in the past. So it is a little bit of semantics here about cutbacks. The real test will be, I think, what happens with the sequestration. Will the Pentagon have to double those cuts? If Congress - as it stands now...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sequestration is what happens if, as a result of the failure of the budget process at the end of last year, there are supposed to be automatic budget cuts imposed by this time, I guess, next year...</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Exactly. A year from now, those cuts would go into effect. So you would double those reductions in Pentagon spending this time next year, unless Congress somehow sidetracks that. But here's the other thing, Neal. We were talking about this earlier. If the Pentagon is saying we can pretty much do everything we can - we're doing now with a half trillion dollars in cuts, you're going to see a number of people, liberal Democrats on the Hill, maybe Tea Party people, saying, wait a minute, if you guys can pretty much do everything you want to do now, let's just keep cutting - cut 100, 200 billion more, and we'll see what happens.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with NPR's Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman about the new strategy that President Obama unveiled in an unusual visit to the Pentagon last week. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And let's see if we go to Lucas(ph). Lucas on the line from San Antonio.</s>LUCAS: Hi there. Thanks for having me. I've got a couple of quick questions. Then, I'll take my questions off the air - answers off the air. But I really wanted to question your panel here about the importance of dealing with China strategically and really keeping in mind what their goals are. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about China's expansionist ideals. But in fact, when you're actually looking at it, they're only trying to reassert what were traditionally their borders during the imperial dynasties.</s>LUCAS: And I think keeping in mind that, while we're refocusing our resources, it would be really important then, so what would be the best strategy for doing that? And also why do we keep focusing on the Middle East? It seems like - I mean, my entire life, we've been at war there, and the resources there - my brother is right there now fighting. You know, it seems like a massive waste of resources. Someone who's got a bachelor's of science in economics and speaks Mandarin, his wife is Chinese, I just think, you know, that's where we need to be.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Lucas, China - you're correct - believes that reclaiming the borders from its imperial days that has been tough on people in places like Tibet but also it's debatable whether the Chinese empire ever really did incorporate the entire - all the waters of the South China Seas. In any case, that's open to dispute from any number of other countries. But the question about the Middle East, Tom, and we say we're drawing down from there, clearly, the removal of troops from Iraq, that doesn't suggest there aren't tens of thousands of troops in the Persian Gulf, that there's not a continuing military commitment, the 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, and, yeah, last week, we heard Iranian generals say don't come back into the Persian Gulf, John Stennis, but it's going back or it - or a replacement is going back.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Well, clearly, 40 percent of the world's oil comes through the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, that's a big reason why we're in the region. We have to get that oil. We have to make sure the oil is available throughout the world. And also, it's an area of great instability. Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, is a real worry about if that becomes a failed state. That's the big reason why we're in Afghanistan, to keep an eye on Pakistan and make sure things don't go south in that area. You know, Israel is a strong ally of the United States, another reason we're interested in the region. But number one, clearly, is oil.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This email from Michael. Tom, have you read anything to the effect of the armed forces, especially the Navy, being used and enhanced in ecocatastrophic responses as part of a global climate change - storms, quakes, tsunami et cetera. I know the military has been ahead of the American public in acknowledging the destabilizing potential of climate change and had it in planning documents.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: They have been talking about that more and more in the past number of years. It could be - well, this is all wrapped into population growth, coastal cities becoming much larger, potential for instability. The Marines, U.S. Marines in particular, were helpful in the tsunami episode and so forth. So...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: In Japan, yes.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: In Japan. And so clearly, they're looking at that as a concern in the coming years and having to go in and do humanitarian operations and so forth. That's a big selling point for the Marine Corps now that, basically, we can do it all. We can fight wars, and we can be there for humanitarian disasters. But as far as climate change, everyone in the Pentagon is talking about that as a real concern for problems in the future.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I guess, the Navy played an important role in the first days in Haiti, a couple of years ago as well, but to say that the Navy or Marine Corps exists to work - help out in ecodisasters is, well, it's an expensive way to do it.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Right. Or the Marines can say we can do it all...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: ...everything from humanitarian up to wars.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So, Tom Bowman, thanks very much for your time today, and we'll look forward to this as the numbers come out, the devil always in the details most of the time.</s>TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman here with us in Studio 3A.

The winter solstice has come and gone, making it officially winter in the U.S., with cooler temperatures, less sunlight, and, in some places, snow, ice, and frost. A panel of experts discusses the different phenomena that combine to make up the season we call winter, and give tips for how best to appreciate the natural world in wintertime. Andrew Fraknoi, professor of Astronomy, Foothill College, Los Altos Hills, Calif. Paul Yeager, writer and meteorologist, author, "Weather Whys. Weather Whys: Facts, Myths, and Oddities," State College, Penn. David Mizejewski, naturalist, National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Va.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. As the song goes, look around, leaves are brown and the sky is a hazy shade of winter. But why? Why do the days get shorter, it gets colder, plants go dormant, animals migrate or hibernate, the constellations change in the sky?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: If you've ever wondered about how winter works, give us a call. For what you can see in the skies to what you can spot in your own backyard gardens, we're here to help you see and enjoy the winter wonderland, answer your questions, maybe even make you enjoy it more by knowing more, as Richard Feynman used to talk about.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Our number, 1-800-989-8255 is our number. Our guests are - let me introduce them - Dr. Andrew Fraknoi, he is no stranger to SCIENCE FRIDAY. He's a professor of Astronomy at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California. He's at KQED in San Francisco. Welcome back, Andrew.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Nice to be with you again.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And I saw Orion out for the first time a few weeks ago. I was very happy to see that winter was back.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: It's true. This is a wonderful time for stargazers.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, we'll talk more about that. Paul Yeager is a writer and meteorologist and author of the book "Weather Whys: Facts, Myths, and Oddities," published by Perigee Books. He joins us from State College, Pennsylvania. Welcome, welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>PAUL YEAGER: Good afternoon, how are you?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're welcome, thanks for joining us.</s>PAUL YEAGER: I'm glad to be here.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So are we. David Mizejewski is a naturalist with the National Wildlife Federation, he's at our headquarters, based at their headquarters in Reston, Virginia. He joins us from our NPR studios in Washington. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Thanks for having me.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Andrew, let me go back to winter. You know, most people have - I talk about this, there have been studies of Harvard graduate students. Why is it hotter in the summer or colder in the winter? And so many people have no idea, do they? They all get it wrong.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: That's correct. In fact most Americans believe that it's distance from the sun that gives us the hotter and colder days. And actually it's very interesting, because yesterday was what we astronomers call perihelion day, when we were actually closest to the sun, and yet it's winter. So it clearly can't be the distance from the sun that controls the seasons, and we know that in fact the reason for the seasons is that the Earth is tilted.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Like an accident victim whose back is injured and who can't stand up straight, the Earth had an accident many billions of years ago, and the result is that the Earth's axis is permanently tilted, and we go around the sun leaning over. And it's that lean in the Earth that causes the sunlight to differ in the summer and in the winter, that gives us the more spread-out sunlight and gives us the shorter days that characterize our winters in the Northern Hemisphere.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's talk about - you talked about the perihelion. What is the solstice? That sort of confuses people, too, doesn't it?</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Well, that's right, so perihelion means closest to the sun, and solstice is the time when we have the shortest day and the longest night. We had our solstice in December, on December 21, 22, and that's the time when, because of the Earth's axis leaning, we get the longest period of time when we're in darkness and the shortest period of time that we're in the day.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. Paul Yeager, now that we know the difference between and why we have winter versus summer with the planets and the sunfall, what difference in incoming energy accounts for everything we think of as, like, winter weather?</s>PAUL YEAGER: Oh, it makes a huge difference, and everything that Andrew just talked about plays into why cold air breeds during the time of year when the sun is tilted away from the Earth on that particular axis. So right now, the Earth is tilted in such a way that there's almost complete darkness in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, perfect breeding ground for cold air.</s>PAUL YEAGER: More energy from the Earth escapes from the Earth than comes in. Therefore, it gets colder, promotes more snow cover. The more snow cover, the colder the ground is, the more the heat goes away, and also the sun - I mean, the snow on the ground also reflects the sunshine away from the Earth, also promoting it to get cold.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Why is it that times we'll have - even here in the Northeast, we're having, I don't want to jinx it, a very mild winter?</s>PAUL YEAGER: Well, yeah, so far this year what's been happening is that we sort of have a northern branch of the jet stream and a southern branch of the jet stream, and the northern branch is the one that's responsible for bringing the cold air southward, and that has stayed pretty far to the north so far this winter season, and it's kept the cold air locked in more across Canada than it has been able to come southward in the United States.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: David Mizejewski, people often say oh, winter's so depressing, you look outside, everything is dead, but that's far from the case, is it not?</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: That's absolutely far from the case. You know, in fact winter for me is one of my favorite seasons. You know, one of the coolest things about winter is that there are no leaves, at least not on the deciduous trees, and that makes opportunities to get outside and observe nature, you know, so much greater than maybe in the warm seasons.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: You know, you can go bird-watching. You can look for tracks in the snow or even in the mud if there's no snow on the ground, and you just have a much bigger chance of actually getting to see something. And at National Wildlife Federation, that's one of our things that we try to get people to do is actually go outside.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: And so winter can be a really great time. You know, you just - if it's cold out, bundle up, head outside. There's tons of great field guides. And if you just observe, you're going to experience some really cool things that you wouldn't get to see otherwise.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Andrew Fraknoi, I mentioned my favorite constellation, Orion, is showing up in the winter. Why do these different constellations have seasons to them?</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Well, we see, as we go around the sun, we see different constellations at different time of the year. And winter is really good from an astronomer's point of view because we have these long nights, and so you have more of an opportunity, as long as it's not snowing or cloudy, to take a look at the brilliant winter sky.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: And you point out probably my favorite constellation, too, which is the constellation of Orion, pretty easy to find because there are two very bright stars that define the shoulder and the leg of this great hunter named Orion from ancient legend.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: And then there are three bright stars that make up a belt, and that's pretty easy to spot. And then you can see the brightest star in the sky, Sirius, if you follow the belt along toward the left, and that's a pretty spectacular constellation or star grouping that almost everyone can find if you're looking in the winter sky.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. Let's see if we can get some phone calls in here from lots of inquisitive people. Carl(ph) in Buffalo, New York, hi, Carl.</s>CARL: Hello, hello, great show as always. Everybody loves the weekend for certain reasons, obviously, but I like it because of SCIENCE FRIDAY. I look forward to the show every week.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you.</s>CARL: So keep up the great work. Two things: There's a strange phenomenon that happens in Buffalo, New York, surrounded by Lake Erie. In the summer, clouds are like any other city, they're overhead, they're everywhere. But in the winter, they surround the city, a real thick cloud just surrounds the perimeter of the city. It's only maybe about 10 degrees above the horizon. It's a very strange phenomena. I was wondering if you knew the answer to that.</s>CARL: And also one more quick question, the back-to-back La Ninas, why is this year's La Nina so much different than last year's?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, Carl, thanks for calling from Buffalo, always has a special place in my heart. Paul, got any answer for that?</s>PAUL YEAGER: Well, I'm guessing the clouds have to do with the difference in the temperatures of the lake. During the summertime, the lake is cool relative to the air masses around it, and during the winter, the water is, until it freezes, relatively warm compared to the air masses around it, and that probably is what makes a difference in where the clouds form, just as it makes a difference in when you get lake-effect snow and things like that.</s>PAUL YEAGER: And as far as the La Nina, you're absolutely right. There is a La Nina this winter, and there was a La Nina last winter, but the two winters have so far been dramatically different. And one of the reasons for that is, you know, La Nina and El Nino are two things that are often talked about by meteorologists and by the general public because they're pretty well-understood.</s>PAUL YEAGER: They affect the climate pretty dramatically in a given year. So they tend to be the first things we think of. However, there are other atmospheric phenomena that can supersede a La Nina or an El Nino in a given year. And this year compared to last year, there has not been as much of a negative phase of what's called the Arctic oscillation, which is something that allows that cold air to come southward out of Canada very effectively in the eastern United States.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. Lots of folks want to ask good questions, like Cathy(ph) in North Carolina. Hi, Cathy.</s>CATHY: Hey, how's it going?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hey there.</s>CATHY: Great. This is just something that the logic has always escaped me. All right, the winter solstice, December 21st, that's when the angle is - you know, we're leaning the most, and those rays are the shortest. Then why is it that January and February are just about invariably the coldest months? Shouldn't it be like January and November, peaking in December, and February is comparable to, say October?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Good question, Cathy.</s>PAUL YEAGER: There is a bit of a delay in what happens, you know, when you get the lack of sunshine for - until the atmosphere actually cools, so its coolest point is like a one-month delay. It is the same thing when you're at your maximum amount of sun coming in during the summer. There's like a month delay until the atmosphere warms to its warmest. So there is always a little bit of a lag with your normal temperatures being a month behind, you know, the astronomical phenomena.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Ira, if I can add...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Go ahead, please.</s>CATHY: OK, though, can I possibly (unintelligible) question...</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Did you experience the same thing...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: What's that?</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Hold on one sec.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hang on. Let Andrew finish up the answer.</s>CATHY: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: So the - you notice the same thing in your swimming pool, right, that your swimming pool doesn't heat up right away. Much of the Earth's surface is made of water, and it takes a while for the heat to be lost in winter and to be gained in the summer. We call this the seasonal lag, and that's why you'll notice that the hottest days of the summer are not at the summer solstice, but a month or two after that.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, that's why Buffalo is getting all that snow because the warm water is all evaporating. Its cold air just over it and pounds it. Yeah, I'm sorry, Cathy, you wanted to say something else?</s>CATHY: Yeah, just one other quick question. I'm up in the mountains in the northwestern North Carolina. And we have an interesting little phenomenon here that in the winter, we'd had next to no snow this year so far. But when we do get snow, sometimes there will be not a cloud to be seen, but there's still snow coming down, just a very fine snow, but there's - you look up in the sky and there ain't no clouds up there.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So is it like sort of a fine, misty snow or...</s>CATHY: Just a very fine, so fine snow. And you're kind of looking around and it's not windy, and you're saying, well, OK, where is this coming from.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Paul, do you have a suggestion for that?</s>PAUL YEAGER: Well, you know, you usually - to have official snow falling from the sky, you are going to need to have some form of clouds. You know, what might be happening is it could be some version of a fog that's kind of freezing into ice crystals close to the ground. You know, you might be able to see the sun through something like that. But, you know, for you to have real snow falling that's accumulating an inch at a time, something like that, you would need to have, you know, legitimate cloud.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you, Cathy.</s>CATHY: No - OK, thanks. Bye-bye.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Take care. Did you want to jump in there, say something? Whom did I interrupt? No one, I guess. 1-800-989-8255 is our number. we're talking about what goes on in the wintertime. And we're talking about snow. And another thing people think about when they think about winter, Dave, is animal hibernation.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: That's right, yeah. And, you know, the whole idea of what wildlife does in the winter is actually really tied to what we were just talking about, and that is not necessarily temperature. I think a lot of people think, oh, it's getting cold, you know, so the trees are losing their leaves and, you know, the birds are flying South, and the bears are going into their winter sleep. It really has a lot more to do with photoperiod, with the amount of light. That really is the trigger in the behavior of these living organisms. And it's kind of neat to think about the fact that, you know, these plants and animals that live on the surface of the planet, along with us that we see every day really are being influenced by, you know, by the much bigger, you know, what goes on with the sun and the axis of the Earth and everything.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: And it's a macro way of think about all this. But, yeah, hibernation or winter torpor is something that a lot of species do, and it's just their mechanism of surviving the fact that there is a lot less sunlight, which means that plants can't photosynthesize as much, if at all. And that means that that there's a lot less food at the bottom of the food chain for the, you know, the smaller animals and the herbivores to actually, you know, eat and then higher up the food chain, the predatory, carnivorous animals don't have anything to eat. So what a lot of animals do is they just sleep it off.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Sleep it off.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Bears will go into dens. They don't do a true hibernation. Their body temperature doesn't get really low like the true hibernators, like, some of the ground squirrels or the bats or reptiles and amphibians. But they pretty much, you know, they sleep away those cold, lean times. And when the sunlight - the amounts of sunlight start increasing and the plants are able to photosynthesize and the insects wake up and start reproducing. And again from that base of the food chain, the animals that sleep through the winter wake back up. Similarly, another strategy for survival is migration. You know, everybody knows that birds migrate south for the winter. And not all birds do, obviously, but a lot of other creatures do too, including butterflies - monarch butterflies make an immense migration from, you know, as far north as southern Canada, all the way down into Mexico every year.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Let me just remind everybody that I'm Ira Flatow, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR, and talking about things to see in the wintertime with Andrew Fraknoi, Paul Yeager and David...</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Mizejewski.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. Mizejewski. Somebody says, how do I get these names right. You see, I don't. 1-800-989-8255 is our number. Lots of people are talking about the winter, let's - in the couple of minutes before the break, let's go to someone who knows a lot about winter. Mary in Fairbanks. Hi, Mary.</s>MARY: Hi, Ira. Thanks for the great program. I had to call in today.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Tell us, do you like the winter in Fairbanks?</s>MARY: Winter is my favorite season. I've lived here for 47 years, and I celebrate the summer solstice because it's starting to get darker and darker and darker and winter is coming. And then by about November, December, we really have much shorter days, about four hours of daylight. But I've learned that you have to live with nature, not try to fight nature. And I've - my strategy for survival is just to adapt to the change and enjoy a more introspective time where life can slow down a little bit, and you can take the time to think about things and read more. And it is a feeling of denning up and then one that - right now, it's getting light about quarter to 9. There's some light in the sky, and you just want to get out in the middle of the day and do things and then stay inside when it's real cold and be comfortable.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So it doesn't depress you at all, all that darkness?</s>MARY: As long as I can get outside for a couple hours a day, when it is light. That's what I need. And I taught school one year and it drove me crazy because I had to be inside all day long, and I learned that that wasn't the job for me, so I work seven days a week in the summer, and then in the winter I'm more in charge of my time, and I can just go out in the middle of the day and get a good dose of sunshine and enjoy winter.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow. What a very nice way to look at it.</s>MARY: Well, it's - it rules here, and it's a major long season up here. So if you don't like winter, you shouldn't live in Fairbanks, but I love both Fairbanks and the winter.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Thank you very much, and have a joyous winter.</s>MARY: Thank you very much. I feel blessed to be here.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you for calling. No better call, then, to go to our break. We're going to come back and - after this break and talk lots more about winter with Andrew Fraknoi - he's professor of astronomy at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California - Paul Yeager, author of "Weather Whys: Facts, Myths, and Oddities," and David Mizejewski. He is a naturalist with the National Wildlife Federation. Our number: 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us your ideas about winter, @scifri, and also go to our website at sciencefriday.com and our Facebook page. We'll be right back after this break. Don't go away.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We're talking this hour about winter. And, you know, if you've been following us on our website all week long, we've been hosting a winter photography contest on our Facebook page, and we want your best winter nature shots. We already have about a hundred or so on our Facebook page, but we still want more of them. So you can go to our SciArts page of sciencefriday.com for info on where to send your photo.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We'll take your submissions, oh, up until Sunday night. The instructions are also on our Facebook page. And then we're going to be judging and picking a winner, and we want you to be part of that judging process. Even if you aren't a photographer - you haven't sent us anything - you can go to our Facebook page @scifri and vote for your favorite photo by liking it. Click on that little like button.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And we're going to keep the voting open until next Wednesday at midnight, East Coast time. And the photo with the most likes is going to get the coveted SCIENCE FRIDAY pocket protector, hand-autographed by someone here. So start voting. Send your photos in, and we'll pick a winner by next week and announce it on next week's program.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: In the meantime, we're going to still be talking about winter. My guests are Andrew Fraknoi, Paul Yeager and David Mizejewski. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Let's talk some questions here before we go to the phones. You know, all the time - and I'll just throw this out to the - to general discussion here - if you're from the North like I am and you go to Southern states or other parts in the South, you're wondering, what's winter like to the plants and the animals here? Do they actually experience a seasonal change?</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Well, yeah. I mean, the - there's a lot of species that have wide range and are found, you know, in the North, to use the U.S., for example, and the Northeast as well and the Southeast. And, you know, sort of the different populations follow the rhythms of nature, right? And so the winters in the Deep South don't get as bad as the winters further North.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: And so, for example, you know, to use the bear winter dormancy example, you know, bears might be active a lot longer into the year. And in some places, maybe they don't even go dormant, whereas further North - where, you know, it's darker, the winters are more harsh - maybe they're going to go into dormancy earlier. You also see different species living in those different areas for that exact reason.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: You know, there are certain species that can't tolerate a - an extremely cold winter. And so their populations only get as far North as the upper, you know, South or maybe into the Mid-Atlantic. So there's various strategies that living creatures have evolved over thousands and millions of years to survive and kind of, you know, kind of be in this rhythm with what's going on with the axis of the planet and the weather and the seasons and the climate.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Ramona(ph) in Norwich, Connecticut. Hi there.</s>RAMONA: Hi. How are you, gentlemen?</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi there.</s>RAMONA: I have a question. I live in the suburban part of Connecticut, and deer often come and eat off my apple trees towards the end of the summer. And, lately, they've been putting in new housing developments around me, and the deer seem to be shoved into the back of my two acres in the wood there. So they come into my yard and eat off my bird feeders. I've begun to be putting the bird food on the ground for them, and apples and pears and things like that. Is that necessarily a bad thing?</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Well, I'll take that one. You know, generally speaking, we don't recommend any kind of artificial feeding of wildlife beyond maybe putting out a bird feeder for seed-eating birds. You know, there's research out there that shows that the birds typically are only using that as a supplement to the natural food sources, which just highlights why it's important to keep native vegetation around because that's where the birds are getting their natural food sources.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: You know, here's the thing with white-tailed deer. You know, they might look like they're cold and they're suffering, but in the bigger picture in terms of their species, they're doing quite well, particularly in the Northeast. And while, you know, you might be tempted to want to go out and help them in the cold, they can survive just fine. And believe it or not, they do really well in suburbia.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: You know, this mix of woods and fields and lawns and gardens has actually allowed the white-tailed deer population to explode - that and the fact that we've killed off all the wolves and mountain lions in the Northeast. So it's generally considered not a good thing to artificially feed the deer. It could bolster their populations, and then in the summertime you get deer ticks and all that kind of thing.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thanks for calling, Ramona.</s>RAMONA: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: They're certainly doing OK, the deer on my block. 1-800-989-8255. Let's go back to Palmer, Alaska. Bill in Alaska, hi. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>BILL: Yes. Good to hear from you - here anyway. I was just listening to the description of Fairbanks. Palmer is down by Anchorage near the ocean, so we get a lot more clouds and stuff. And so I call it five-and-a-half hours of twilight because the sun never rises in the east and it never rises in the west, except on an equinox.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow.</s>BILL: It goes around in a circle up here. And right now I'm looking out my window, and it's, oh, 15 degrees above the mountains, looking at me. So that's a little different. And one of the big deals I remember we used to do with the kids is star light, star bright, first star I see tonight. And that's sometime in September, because we haven't seen stars all summer long, or the moon. And that was kind of a fun thing. And then of course...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow. You know, we never think about that.</s>BILL: Yeah.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Ira, this leads to a more general issue, which I think our listeners will be interested to think about, which is that the seasons are not the same in different parts of the world. We in the United States take things so much for granted, that what we get is what everyone gets. But, for example, right now, when we're having the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, they're having summer in the Southern Hemisphere.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: This is summer vacation time. So - and in the same way, as our listener said, sometimes you get these perpetual days of night, where you don't get any daylight at all at high latitudes, or you might get perpetual nighttime or perpetual daytime, depending on where you are, north or south. So this whole idea that our seasons are the only way to be, that's a good thing to get out of your mind and to imagine that there are many ways that people perceive and experience the seasons all around the planet.</s>BILL: Yes. And that's the problem here psychologically, because if you go by the sun, you've still got another month and a half of so-called spring or something, you know, because the seasons don't change with the angle of the sun like they do in the in the South 48, and that is a noticeable difference if you let it bother you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You know, Bill - but you have used - you have something in the Northern states and parts of the country and the globe have something that I have never seen that I'd love to see, and you see it more in the winter, and that is the aurora, right?</s>BILL: Oh, definitely. Definitely. Yeah. It'll stretch from the southern sky to the northern sky, sometimes the whole sky, and dance around and colorful. That's the best part of winter.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, yeah.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: That's beautiful...</s>BILL: But we are noticing the climate change up here quite a bit, and we're getting more precipitation than we have in the last 20 years. Valdez, over there on the coast, is up to - their - they can get 500 inches of snow a year. But - and we've noticed, some of the articles I've read, the vegetation is moving into the tundra area, the (unintelligible) and small bushes and stuff, which they think is because of the warming of the tundra.</s>BILL: The tundra, of course, is permafrost, and some of that's really - and you can spot it if you've looked at a place - a couple pictures where the brush - you know, three, four, five. That makes good (unintelligible). But - and then of course all the erosion along the northwest coast of Alaska that's wiping out the villages because the ice doesn't freeze up to protect them.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Not anymore in the winter. Thank you, Bill, for calling, and have a - and enjoy your winter.</s>BILL: Thank you.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Take care. Yeah, and another thing that's not happening in winters or, as much as he says, they're not - they're getting more precipitation, and permafrost is not staying over as long as it used to.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Yeah. And I'd just to add to that, you know, that's a big issue. You know, climate change obviously is a big issue that National Wildlife Federation is working on and, you know, the scientific community is really watching because one of the things that we're anticipating is wildlife having to, you know, adapt or migrate to deal with the changes in their environment due to this bigger, you know, climate change. And you're seeing it already on the frontlines, you know, places like the tundra where some of the woody plants are moving northward. We're seeing it in the Arctic with the ice not lasting as long, and so therefore polar bears are suffering.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Grizzly bears are moving further north and maybe going to be competing with polar bears. Red foxes are moving north and probably going to be competing with arctic foxes. And so that's a big part of what's going on right now in anticipating and trying to deal with the issue of climate change when it comes to wildlife management.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Paul Yeager, let's talk a bit about snow, ice and the difference between different kinds of frozen water. Frost. How does frost form? Why do we get frost versus some - just ice particles? Or is it just ice forming on stuff?</s>PAUL YEAGER: Well, you know, frost is not really a precipitation type. You know, frost is when the air cools to the point that the water inside of the air condenses, and it's cold enough on the blades of grass or, you know, the ground to actually freeze. It's something that occurs right at the ground level. And it usually happens on a clear night when the sky is clear and all of the heat from the day is escaping and the atmosphere gets nice and chilly and allows that condensation process to occur close to the earth.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is it sort of like frozen dew?</s>PAUL YEAGER: It is frozen dew, yeah.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Frozen.</s>PAUL YEAGER: Exactly.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. And is it true that there are no two snowflakes the same?</s>PAUL YEAGER: You know, that's an interesting debate. And, you know, I would find it very hard to believe that, given a number of snowflakes that have fallen over the, you know, hundreds of millions of years of the life of the planet, there haven't been two that have been the same. You know, just in - you know, I've seen estimates that on a given winter, it's estimated - or a given year, calendar year, winter for both hemispheres, that there are one with 24 zeroes after it number of snowflakes that fall each year.</s>PAUL YEAGER: And if you think about that many snowflakes kind of going through the same process to form, doing that year after year after year after year, you quickly get to the point where it's hard to believe that no two have been alike.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Andrew, let's talk a little bit about what celestial events we might look for and take advantage of the winter season.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Well, this is a great time for planets, Ira. If you go out right after sunset, Venus is in the west, and it's just super bright. So it will sort of knock you socks off astronomically. And if you go out January 26th, about an hour after sunset - put this on your social calendar.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm writing. I'm writing.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: Take someone with you with whom you'd like to sit in the dark. But January 26th, the crescent moon will be right above Venus about an hour after sunset. It'll be gorgeous. Then Jupiter is high in the sky if you look south when the night falls, and it's visible in the evening sky, also quite bright and easy to spot. And then Saturn rises in the east just before 1 a.m., and is halfway up the sky by dawn. So Saturn is a beautiful morning object. If you have a small telescope or binoculars, you can see the rings of Saturn. You can see four of the bright moons around Jupiter. So there are lots of opportunities for planet-gazing, as well as stargazing. But I wanted to go back because if I may, Ira, we haven't answered the original question. We haven't said why there's winter. I thought...</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let me just - before we do that, let me remind everybody who we are. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. And I'm Ira Flatow, talking with Andrew Fraknoi. Go ahead. Why there is winter.</s>ANDREW FRAKNOI: And I'm sorry, but I wanted to get this thing there before we have to go. That - the reason that the Earth's axis is tilted is the real reason for the seasons. And we think that early on, there was a collision, maybe one, maybe more of smaller forming planets with the Earth, which knocked us over. And so our planet has this tilted axis and has all the phenomena that we've been talking about. But not every planet had an accident like this. Venus orbits with its head held straight up. It has no seasons. Jupiter orbits with its head held straight up, and it has no seasons. So although we love the seasons and we kind of accept it as part of life on Earth, it's not a cosmic requirement. Now, I'm sure we'll find many planets out there among other stars that have no sense of winter or summer or anything like seasons.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255. We've just got a couple of minutes left. Paul, do you have any other comments you'd like to contribute about what makes winter special?</s>PAUL YEAGER: I think a lot of things make winter special, some of the things that we talked about. But, you know, personally, I love the snow. I think the snow is something that we can really learn to enjoy if we allow ourselves. We all had that innate love of the snow when we were young, and we would run around and play in the snow. But as we get older and a little bit more practical, we tend to stay more on the sidewalk than we do, you know, heading for the deepest snowdrift. And from that standpoint, I think that we could all learn to appreciate and love the weather because you're not going to change it. You might as well learn how to love it.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And, David Mizejewski, what are some of your favorite signs of winter, things that we can look for in nature?</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Well, as I said earlier, I think one of the best things about winter is the fact that you can go out and you can see a lot more than you can in other seasons simply because, at least in the north, there's not as many leaves. So I think it's a great time to get the family together, turn off the TV, and just make that commitment to go outside, get that fresh air, get exercise and look for, say, last seasons birds' nests that are in the trees and the bushes that you didn't see before because they were hidden. Look for animal tracks if there's snow on the ground. Look up on the sky. That's a great time to watch for winter-resident birds - raptors, in particular. I love going hawk watching in the winter time because you can really spot, you know, the big red-tailed hawks and things like that.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: So, you know, the other thing that I think is a - winter's a great time of year for is planning your garden. You know, for those folks that just can't take the cold and they really just don't want to deal with it, one way to do, you know, have a good time in the winter is to plan out your spring garden. And, of course, at National Wildlife Federation we want folks to plan their wildlife - their gardens with wildlife in mind. So planting native stuff that's going to look great, but also naturally feed the birds and the other critters. So that's a good time of year to do it, is really right now in January.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, and this is in - traditionally, this has been the month where the garden seed catalogs start flooding in.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: That's absolutely right, and there's a reason for it because, you know, people are - do get a little bit of cabin fever at this time of year, and they are dreaming of warmer of weather. So if you can't tolerate the cold and you don't want to get outside, you know, again, plan your springtime garden and, you know, bide it out - ride it out like some of the creatures that hibernate do.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I want to thank you all for taking time to be with us, and wish you all a very happy winter and a Happy New Year. Thanks for Andrew Fraknoi, professor of astronomy at Foothill College, Paul Yeager, author of the book "Weather Whys: Facts, Myths, and Oddities," and David Mizejewski. He is a naturalist with the National Wildlife Federation. Thanks again for joining us today.</s>DAVID MIZEJEWSKI: Thanks, Ira.

President Trump says ISIS is close to eradicated and is asking European allies to take back ISIS fighters captured in Syria. We assess the remaining ISIS presence in Syria and Iraq.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And now we turn to NPR's Jane Arraf, who's been covering the fight against ISIS since the group emerged in 2013 in Syria and a year later in Iraq. She joins us from Amman, Jordan.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Jane, thanks so much for talking to us.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what does a declaration that ISIS is defeated mean?</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: It essentially means the end of their territorial caliphate. So the caliphate was what they declared an Islamic state when they rolled in. And they took over, like, fully one third of Iraq and large parts of Syria. That was at their height. And at that point, they were able to launch attacks with stolen armored vehicles, dozens of suicide bombers. So that's gone.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: They're down to a very small piece of territory in eastern Syria, and that is diminishing fast. So the territory they control is gone, but they are still a threat according to military officials. And they're a threat because they're in that area along the border, in the mountains and because they have sleeper cells that could regenerate.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what happens to the U.S. forces there now?</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: So President Trump declared that he was pulling the forces out of Syria. But so far, there hasn't been a big draw-down. There has been a movement of equipment, and that equipment is coming across the border into a big base in Iraq in the western Al Anbar - in the middle of the desert, basically. But it's also the base where there would be, as is expected, a kind of ramped up effort to still fight ISIS but from Iraq, using that base in Iraq across the border.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: And the Iraqis are doing a lot of this as well. They've coordinated with the Syrian government. And they now have the permission, approval and ability to launch strikes across the border into Syria. So Syrian withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria is expected to go on, but it's not going on in a big, dramatic way at the moment.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: President Trump tweeted that countries have to take back the foreign fighters. Now, what's behind that?</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: So the issue with these foreign fighters is that the forces that are backed by the U.S. that are now faced with the U.S. withdrawing - and they've been fighting ISIS in Syria. They're mostly Syrian-Kurdish forces. They're saying basically that they can't hold these people. They have about 800 foreign fighters. And these fighters have come from, you know, any number of 120 countries when they flooded into the caliphate when it was still going strong.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: So they're saying that they can't really deal with them and that countries should take them back. A lot of countries are reluctant to take them back because once you get these people back, if you get them back, how do you actually prove that they've committed the crimes they're accused of committing? So they're essentially in limbo.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And U.S.-backed Syrian fighters said that there are civilians trapped in the last area of land that they control. What's happening with those people?</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: Well, ISIS uses civilians as human shields. They did that in Iraq. They did that in Mosul, where thousands of civilians were killed by U.S. and Iraqi airstrikes when ISIS had basically herded them into a small part of Mosul and were keeping them there. In eastern Syria, they're also not letting them go. They're using them as a bargaining chip.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: So the civilians are also a problem. It's part of the reason that the fight there has slowed - because all of the forces involved in this fight are trying to minimize civilian casualties. But, as we've seen, thousands and thousands of civilians killed - some estimates up to 12,000 civilians killed in Syria and Iraq. This is a fight - this fight against ISIS that has had a really heavy toll on civilians.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is NPR's Jane Arraf joining us from Amman, Jordan.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Jane, thank you so much.</s>JANE ARRAF, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.

Honey bee colonies around the United States are in decline, threatened by several different diseases and parasites. John Hafernik, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University, describes how a parasitic fly that was thought to prey upon bumblebees may pose a new threat to honey bee populations in the U.S.

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. The honeybee, as we've all heard, is in trouble: various fungus attacks, infestations of tiny mites in the hives and to top it off the mysterious ailment known as colony collapse disorder, in which the bees mysterious disappear from their hives.</s>Now there is a new threat: A parasitic fly once thought to be only a problem to bumblebees has been found to be attacking honeybees as well and turning the honeybees into zombies. They leave the hive in a daze, they form into groups, just like the living dead do in the movies - except these bees eventually die.</s>Now there is a new threat: Joining me now to talk about the find is John Hafernik, he's a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of a report on the find in the journal PLOS One. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Pleased to be here, Ira.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: How did you discover this parasite?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, you know, a lot of people think that science is a carefully planned occupation where everything is thought out ahead of time. But this is really something that happened by accident. I'm not normally a honeybee researcher, but about three years ago now, I was walking into the biology building at San Francisco State, where I work every day, and I noticed that in front of the building, there were a number of honeybees that were laying on the sidewalk in front of the building.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Some of them were walking around in circles, some were in kind of a bee fetal position, and I thought that was strange, but I also saw it as an opportunity. But not as an opportunity to do research, but an opportunity to feed a praying mantid that I'd brought back that weekend from a class field trip with my entomology class.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: So I scooped them up in a vial, brought it down to the mantid, fed the mantid the bees, and she loved them. And in fact, I did that daily then for several days. Eventually she produced a number of egg masses for us and was very happy eating the bees.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: But as luck would have it, one day I went up to my office first, on the fifth floor, and put the vial back onto my desk someplace, amongst the variety of papers - you can imagine my desk. And then left it there, forgot about it. Didn't notice it for another week or so, came back and the vial was filled with dead bees and maggots that were crawling out of them and some small brown pupae that were the pupae formed by those maggots.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: And that's when I knew there was something strange happening to these bees.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: So the maggots, because they were in the vial, sealed up, the maggots had to be coming out of the bees.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: That's right, no place else for them to come from.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so you discovered that there was a tiny fly that was the parasite?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Right, so it took a little detective work, another two weeks or so before the flies hatched out of their pupae and I could tell what they were. And I recognized them as being phorid flies, it's a group of flies that some are parasites, some are kind of scavengers, and I knew the phorid expert was Brian Brown at the Natural History Museum of L.A. County.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: So I called him up and then sent him examples, and he recognized them immediately as a native fly that normally feeds on bumblebees and paper wasps, but had never been found in honeybees before.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And how does it attack the honeybee?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, the way it attacks the honeybees, is that the female lands or chases a honeybee down and lands, gets on its back, her back, and then finds a weak spot. And honeybees have plates on their abdomen that are hard, but in between those segmental plates are membranes that allow them to be flexible.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: And the female finds those flexible membranous areas and has an ovipositor, it's kind of a hypodermic needle-like structure that she inserts in and starts injecting eggs into the abdomen of the bee.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so then that reacts with the bee and sort makes the bees act like zombies?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well eventually. What happens is that those eggs hatch, and they hatch into little maggots, your fly larvae, and begin feeding on the internal contents of the bee, and at some point as this goes along, it starts modifying the behavior of the bee such that the bee does things that bees don't normally do like flying out of a hive at night.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: And if there happens to be a light nearby, then like many insects that are flying around at night, it'll get attracted to that, and eventually these bees become kind of comatose and fall under the lights.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so they - you find them on the floor underneath, on the ground underneath...</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Yeah, and so I - it took me a while to figure out why they were in front of the biology building. I often walk with my head looking down, looking for interesting things in front of me instead of looking up. If I were an ornithologist, maybe I'd be looking up more.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: So later I went out and looked up, and it was right under the lights at the biology building. They were coming up, and we have a bee hive right next to the north part of the biology building. So they were literally flying a beeline from that bee hive to the light.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: But in your paper, you're sort of sounding an alarm. You're not just pointing out some interesting phenomenon under the street light in front of your lab, but that - you think there's a real danger this could be spreading or taking over the bee population?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, we think we need to be careful about this because this is a native fly that's now expanded its host range into a non-native species, the honeybee. So this is something the honeybee hasn't experienced before, and potentially it could be a bigger problem for that species, since it hasn't co-evolved with its parasite.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: We don't know exactly what the extent of the problem is at this point, and some of the accounts I've seen in the media have been - have overstated what we're trying to say. We're not saying we found the solution to colony collapse disorder or that this is going to kill all the honeybees across the United States, but it is something we need to take seriously and to monitor closely to find out indeed how important this is going to be for survival of honeybees.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: If you're a beekeeper with your own hives, can you look for symptoms of this, or is it obvious to you?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, it's probably initially not very obvious because the bees, as best we can tell, leave the hives at night, and so that's not a time when people mostly notice things. And also bees are always leaving hives, even during the daytime. So the unusual thing, of course, is they don't come back.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: But one of the ways beekeepers can monitor this is to set up a light next to their beehives and turning it on at night and see if they are attracting bees coming from their hives at night, if they are then to capture those bees and isolate them, either in a small vial or even an envelope or something like that, and leave them for a week or 10 days and then look and see if there's - if there are fly maggots or fly pupae surrounding those bees.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'll bet you it took you a while to go out and collect a lot of bees, usually.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Yeah, we've collected literally 10,000-plus bees as part of this study so far.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: You must have had a lot of grad students out collecting.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: No, this was very much a group project, and it's not just my work, it's the work of a number of students at San Francisco State University. Andrew Core is the lead author on this paper. He did a lot of the work. Jonathan Ivers has done a lot of work with beekeepers in the Bay Area and so on.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Now the paper's been out a while, a few days actually. What kind of reaction have you been getting? People are saying, you know, I've seen that, I just didn't know what it was. Or gee, I've never seen anything like this.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: I've had emails from all over the world, from people describing behaviors that they've seen in bees, some that sound similar, some that probably are not closely related. And if someone out there has sent me an email, and I haven't answered it, I'm sorry, I haven't had time to answer all of those yet.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Do you want to hear from other people?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, we're interested in hearing about similar kinds of situations, especially if someone is willing to take enough time to isolate some of these bees and see if indeed they are getting larvae out of them because if they're getting the fly larvae out, then that's a pretty sure sign that they have parasitized bees.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Do we know that the bees may be passing them bee-to-bee within hive or between hives?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, at this point it looks like it's probably mostly happening outside of the hive with foraging worker bees, but we have observed pupae of the flies and pupal shells, which means that the pupa has actually hatched, in one of observation hives that we've been looking at. And I've even seen a worker bee carrying around one of these pupae, maybe trying to get rid of it from the hive.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: So there's a potential for this to happen within the hive, as well as for them to get infected outside. It's much more serious if it happens inside the hive because the potential there is to infect not only the foraging bees but also the nurse bees and perhaps even eventually the queen. We haven't seen that yet, though.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, any speculation of why this might be happening now? Or might - it's not been going on for years, obviously, or people might have noticed it?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, we don't know exactly how long it's been going on. We know it's been going on for at least three years now, that's when we first discovered it. In this part of the world, honeybees have been around here since the Gold Rush days. So they've have 160, 170 years to be around these fly parasites. And we don't know how soon the flies actually were able to exploit a new host, the honeybee.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: We suspected it might be relatively recent because the behavior seems aberrant, the fact that they show up at lights, and we don't see a lot of reports of that before, and now we're hearing more of that, but exactly when it happened, we don't know.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, tell me about the bee gene chip.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: The bee gene chip, yeah, this is from Joe DeRisi's lab at the University of California San Francisco. So this is a microarray. It basically has little bits of DNA on it from various kinds of organisms, viruses, bacteria, nematode worms and varroa mites, things that might parasitize a honeybee.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: So - and now our fly on that chip as well. That means that we can take a sample from bees that are collected out of hives virtually anywhere and then use the microarray to detect DNA from these different kinds of organisms, and if we get a positive hit, as we have in some cases with the fly, then we know that the DNA of the fly is there, and so the fly must be there, as well.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is there anything to do if you discover that your hive is infected with these parasites?</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Yeah, at this point we don't have a cure or a set of instructions of how to handle things. I mean, setting up a light trap next to the hive might attract the infected workers, and then if you kill them and dispose of them, that might help a little bit in transmission. But other than that at the moment, we don't have a cure.</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: We're hoping that as we learn more about the relationship between the fly and the bee and how it recognizes its host and what the important cues are that maybe we can find a weak link in that chain, and that can be used to break the cycle.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, we have a lot of beekeepers who listen to SCIENCE FRIDAY. So maybe you'll get some help there, and...</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: Well, maybe so, and beekeepers have been really wonderful in working with us on this project. They're a special breed of people.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you very much, and good luck to you. Thanks for...</s>JOHN HAFERNIK: You're welcome.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thanks for taking time to talk with us about this. John Hafernik is a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of this bee report, finding this incidence in the journal PLOS, Public Library of Science, One.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: We're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about the winter. Where do the bees go in the winter? There's a question, right? You don't see the bees around in the winter. They do something really interesting during the winter in the hive, but everything that happens in the winter, changes of seasons, we're going to talk about this science of nature in the winter. So stay with us. We want to hear what you think. We'll be right back after this break.</s>IRA FLATOW, HOST: I'm Ira Flatow, this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

Politicians often reveal personal stories on the campaign trail. But those revelations often draw criticism from opponents. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat says politicians can and should contest the critiques, but that many have lost the right to complain about them. Read Ross Douthat's New York Times column, "Personal and Political"

NEAL CONAN, HOST: And now, The Opinion Page. And this week, Ross Douthat, of The New York Times, on politicians and privacy. Case in point, the criticism some commentators leveled at Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, he's spoken openly throughout a number of years about the grief he and his wife, Karen, shared with their family when they took home their infant son two hours after his death. On The Times' op-ed page over the weekend, Douthat argued that when politicians incorporate their families and personal choices into their campaigns, that becomes fair game. Really?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Can the personal ever not be political? Where do we draw the line? 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. Ross Douthat is a columnist for The New York Times, and he joins us here in Studio 3A. Nice to have you with us today.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Thanks so much for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that case - some of those criticisms leveled at Rick Santorum seem, well, to put it mildly, over the top.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Over the top, I would go further. I think that they were stupid. But I think the point I was trying to make in the column was that there's a distinction between stupid and off limits. And by that, I mean, that, you know, Santorum and his wife suffered a terrible tragedy, the premature birth of their child, Gabriel, and they wrote a book about it and have discussed it openly and so on. And the reason that it is fraught and controversial is, obviously, because Santorum himself and his wife as well are famously pro-life.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Santorum was a leading sponsor of the partial birth abortion ban, a sort of leading tribune of the pro-life cause. And what you see in the controversy over - the specific controversies over the fact that Santorum and his wife brought the body of their stillborn, you know, it was - at five and a half months of pregnancy child home with them overnight before burying it the next day. And you had a couple of commentators, Eugene Robinson of The Post and Alan Colmes on Fox, saying that that was creepy and bizarre, with the implication being it was creepy and bizarre because it showed how fanatically committed to the pro-life cause Santorum is.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, to some degree, also hypocritical that the drugs that...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Well, this was the - right, this was the further point that was made by some leftwing bloggers was that in some of the accounts of how the premature birth happened, it seemed that maybe Santorum's wife had taken antibiotics knowing that they would hasten delivery of a child that couldn't survive. This doesn't seem to have been the case, but the argument was made that this was, in some sense, tantamount to a late-term abortion. And again, I think that argument is stupid.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: But I think that it's stupid in a way that we have to sort of expect to have, like, I don't think it's fair for the Santorums to say, well, it's OK for us to talk about our miscarried child and to talk about it in the context of, essentially, a pro-life argument about fetal life, but then to say, well, but we have a zone of privacy, and nobody can cross this zone of privacy and criticize us.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So we can tell our story, but nobody else can tell it.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Right. Because other people, you know, I think that the fact that the way that their story was contested was stupid and arguably offensive doesn't mean that it crossed a line of privacy, if that distinction makes sense. And I know it's sort of a fine distinction to make.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Another point - case in point, that of Sarah Palin, who, as a vice presidential candidate and as governor of Alaska, campaigned essentially with the Down syndrome baby.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Right. And this is something you see again with the Santorums as well, where they have a daughter, Bella, who I believe is about 3 years old, who has trisomy 18.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Another genetic disorder.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Another genetic condition that has similar but even, I think, worse effects than Down syndrome. And again, in that case, I think in a society where a huge proportion of both Down syndrome and trisomy 18 fetuses are aborted. The decision - one, the mere decision to carry the child to term, you know, can be seen to be the sort of ideological choice, in a sense. And two, then the decision to sort of publicize the decision and to - I mean, Palin incorporated special needs children into her speeches. Santorum cut a video - I think for Iowa - sort of focusing on Bella - a tremendously moving video, but a video that was clearly designed to make a kind of appeal to pro-life voters.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: And again, once the politician decides that they're sort of - that they're going to blur the personal and political in this way, you have to expect that people – again, often stupidly and offensively, but are, you know, are going to push back. And in Palin's case, it was, you know, these conspiracy theories about how Trig Palin wasn't really her child. And again, I thought - I think that they were ridiculous, but it wouldn't be fair for Palin to just say, well, you know, I have a right to privacy, because she's already sort of recognized that that line blurs.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: And the analogy that I drew maybe persuasive, maybe not, is that, if you're a politician in the Jim Crow South, right, where sex and reproduction are less contested, but race is clearly contested. For a politician to - a white politician to marry a black woman, right, in, say, Alabama 1932, that's inevitably a political as well personal statement, in a sense. And you have to - if you're a white politician who married a black woman, you would have to be ready for the blowback. So Santorum and Palin need to be ready for the blowback as well.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Then does that extend to, well, politicians' families? There is no politician - and you think of President Obama, his daughters, Malia and Sasha - appear from time to time. But it can't be said that they are used as poster children. They're on stage from time to time, but they're not part of his campaign...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Right.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...not part of his narrative in the same way. Are they fair game?</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: I think they're only fair game if there were a situation in which, you know, if President Obama starts citing Sasha or Malia to make a point about public education, and his position on public education, right? And how his position is vindicated by the experiences of his daughters. Then it would be perfectly reasonably...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Who do not attend public school.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Who do not attend - right. So that would be a pretty - right - a pretty ineffective way of making the point. But just, you know, in the same way, you know, for a commentator, for instance, the way people did with Chelsea Clinton, right, to make fun of a public figure's child's appearance, I think clearly - I mean, you know, it's going to happen. But I think it clearly crosses a line, and it would be best if that didn't happen. But when the politician employs his children's lives, their stories as part of his, sort of, political or ideological narrative, then the, you know, the sort of claim that, oh, but they have to have their privacy as well, gets harder to make.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, let's get some callers in on the conversation. Where do we draw the line here? Our guest is Ross Douthat of The New York Times. 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Katie(ph), and Katie on the line with us from Orlando.</s>KATIE: Hi. I think that politicians' lives, their personal lives, should be, you know, talk about. They want to make laws that affect our personal lives, like, for example, gay marriage. You know, I know we're talking about abortion, but, for example, gay marriage, he compares it to bestiality. And he...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rick Santorum, right.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Rick Santorum, yes.</s>KATIE: Yeah, exactly, Santorum. And they're going to make statements like that, and they're going to impact the choices that we make in our bedrooms, for example, then, yes. I mean, everything they say and the choices that they've made in their lives should be discussed, openly, because they're usually hypocritical. And he wants to limit women's choice to - when to get an abortion if they can get an abortion. And I read that his wife would have had an abortion if they had any – if things hadn't worked out the way they had. I don't know the exact details, but she would have gotten an abortion.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well...</s>KATIE: But now he's saying we can't.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Woulda, shoulda - we don't know that, Katie, for...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Well, what was said, was, I believe, that Santorum was quoted as saying that not that they would have had an abortion in the sense of directly killing the fetus that was their child, Gabriel, but that they - had there been a situation where the only way to save her life was to actually induce labor, knowing that...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: As consequence, the baby wouldn't...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: ...the baby wouldn't be able to survive, that they would have done that. And I think what - the difficulty with saying that that's the same as having an abortion, is that most, sort of, pro-life groups...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Including...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: ...including the Santorum's - my own, I should say, the Roman Catholic Church - would say that there's a distinction between the act of direct abortion and an intervention that is necessary to save the mother's life that - with the child. And, you know, in the case of Gabriel, he lived for two hours after delivery. It's not quite the same, clearly I think, as a partial birth abortion.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: But I do want to - I want to agree with Katie in the sense that - and I talked about this a bit in the column. In the debate over marriage, for instance, I think it is perfectly reasonable for, you know, in the debate about gay marriage, for instance, for supporters of gay marriage to say, well, you know, someone like Newt Gingrich, who says, you know, gay shouldn't be able to get married, it's - we should look at his personal life and see how seriously he has treated the institution of marriage.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: And I think it's a similar thing, where it's easier to say a politician's marital life is none of your business in an era when the definition of marriage isn't contested. And if the definition is contested, then the fact that Newt Gingrich has had two divorces and three wives – it's reasonable to say, well, that shows that, you know, how can we take him seriously in his argument for traditional marriage if he doesn't seem to take traditional marriage seriously himself? So in that sense, I think Katie makes a good point.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Katie, thanks very much.</s>KATIE: Thank you. Bye.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Ross Douthat of The New York Times. It was interesting, yes, the Santorums talk very openly about their story, included in their narrative. There was a not dissimilar circumstance in the Kennedy administration, where Patrick Kennedy was stillborn at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod and very little made of that. That was kept private.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: It was kept private, and it wasn't - I mean, I should say that, you know, it wasn't a case - I believe the pregnancy was much further along and they're - I don't think, necessarily, there were, you know, the sort of - the medical details were different. But it was hard to imagine in 1963, that becoming a cultural war flashpoint because at that point, you know, there was a debate about abortion in the United States in early 1960s. But there was a, you know, abortion was generally illegal, and there was at least some kind of consensus around that issue in a way that there simply isn't today.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: And I think that's what you see as, sort of - as personal issues become politicized or become less politicized, the space that a politician has for privacy either expands or shrinks. So a politician has more privacy now, in the sense that, you know, he's not going to get attack by segregationists if he has an interracial marriage. But he has less privacy in the sense that issues like divorce, abortion, gay marriage and so on, are more likely to become political issues.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: The opinion page, you can get a link to Ross Douthat's piece that ran in The New York Times over the weekend, by going to our website, npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Joe is on the line, calling from Lansing.</s>JOE: Yeah. Hey, Neal. Well, I didn't deter. There's just as many different lines as there are different politicians. You know, most of the journalists out there actually do a great job, and Ross is one of them. Most of them, they actually do a great job observing the lines. The lines are basically created by the politicians themselves. I mean, you just literally spoke of Kennedy on one side, Palin and Santorum on another. These individuals themselves are the ones creating their own lines as to what's private and what's not. So I don't really think that they do have a whole lot of wiggle room to say, woe is me, woe is me, that's off-limits. I, you know, the majority of, I think, journalists do actually do a good job. And as I said, Ross is one of them.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: That's very - I really appreciate that caller.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You didn't know you had...</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: I think he's a wonderful human being.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You didn't know you had cousins in Lansing. But it does, though, raise the question of, all right, what if it's not part of the narrative? What if it is something that is kept private? Where do you draw the line there? Is it - it could be just as hypocritical, but nevertheless, not something that the politician was trumpeting in any way.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Right. And I agree that it becomes more of a gray area, clearly when, you know, if, for instance, you know, Rick and Karen Santorum's personal tragedy had not been something that they had discusses publicly - Mrs. Santorum wrote a book about it and so on - then, yeah, then it gets murkier. And there - as the caller said, you know, there are sort of just judgment calls that the press, as a beast or as an institution, or as an individual, has to make.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Joe, thanks for the call, and we'll expect you at the Douthat's Thanksgiving next year. Here's an email from Valerie in Roanoke. I think personal stories, anecdotes, et cetera, are used for political purposes - whether that's to humanize the candidate, illustrate their commitment to an ideal, show the importance of family life, et cetera - then those aspects of the candidate's life are fair game. However, if something is outside of the political campaign and the rhetoric, then it should be viewed as off-limits. The commenter should also stay away from personal attacks and stay in the realm of political relevance. Well, boy, there's another blurry line.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: It - well - but, you know, right, and that's the goal. But it's a good, you know, it's - you saw this - I think it was three or four Republican debates ago, right, where there was the...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I'd lost track.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: ...the question. Well, it was when Gingrich was surging in the polls, and there was - the question was post to the assembled candidates. You know, do you feel that a candidate's personal life is fair game and so on? And it was this tremendously awkward scene where they sort of all took turns, basically saying, don't vote for Newt because he is - he was an adulterer. But obviously, didn't say it in the...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Those terms, those terms.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: The said, well, of course, it's, you know, it shows whether you keep your word and so on and all the rest of it. And it is - and then Gingrich had, I think, actually a pretty effective and humble response in that case. But it is - I think that what - my answer to the blurriness is that, when you can draw a line between policy and personal life, and when, sort of, that line - when there's that, sort of, particular level of hypocrisy that's achieved - for instance, a pro-life candidate, you know, whose wife had an abortion - I don't think it's fair for the pro-life candidate to say, well, that's a private matter, right? Because that goes to the heart of the policy question under dispute. But it's trickier with things like, you know, is a politician's adultery an issue if you can't necessarily draw a line between that and policy?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So as we go ahead, it is going to be instructive... To some degree, it's been patty-cake up until now. The gloves started to come off a little bit in Iowa, a little bit more on Sunday in New Hampshire. South Carolina, it looks like it could be very tough.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Right, although they're coming off - I mean, what's interesting about the Republican campaign now, is that, at least as far as we know, the front-runner, Mitt Romney, has led a - well, with the exception perhaps of the, you know, the story about putting a dog on the roof of his station wagon while driving...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Right.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: ...but has led a exemplary personal life, you know, married to the same woman, not a whisper of adultery, you know, seemingly, children at least well-adjusted enough to campaign for him. And so the attacks now are, you know, increasingly harsh, but they're all focused on his professional career and so on. I mean, it could be that we're headed for a general election between Romney and Obama, where you have two candidates who - again, whatever their sort of policy flaws are sort of generally viewed as admirable family men, because I think that's how a lot of people - even people who don't like Obama see him in that light as well.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ross Douthat, thanks very much for your time.</s>ROSS DOUTHAT: Thanks so much for having me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ross Douthat, a columnist for The New York Times, with us here in Studio 3A. Tomorrow, fact checkers off in the booth reviewing exaggerations, tall tales and all-out lies politicians tell. Who checks the fact checkers? Join us for that. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

After more than 20 years as a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Pulitzer Prize-winner Cynthia Tucker left to become a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She edited the editorial page for the paper for eight years until she was reassigned as a political columnist.

JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: For over 20 years, Cynthia Tucker's columns have captivated and, at times, infuriated readers across the country. In 2007, she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her clear-headed and courageous commentary. She made headlines in 2009 when The Atlanta Journal-Constitution transferred her to Washington and removed her from its editorial board. Critics said this changed the paper's longstanding editorial outlook. It's one of many changes and challenges she's faced in opinion journalism. Cynthia Tucker joins us in a moment.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Why do you read op-eds? Give us a call: 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, or join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. Cynthia Tucker joins us now from a studio in Atlanta. Welcome back to the program, and congrats on your position at the University of Georgia.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Thank you so much.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You were a columnist for more than two decades. What about the job changed over that time?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, Jennifer, as you know, newspapers have changed over that time. When I entered the business way back in - I won't say when...</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: ...newspapers were still delivered to the doorsteps of most Americans. While many Americans certainly got their news from television and radio, newspapers were still the dominant source of news for the vast majority of voters. And that has changed significantly over my career. But there were also a couple of changes that I think of as more positive in newspapers during my career. When I entered the business, there were very few women in high-ranking positions.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: In the newspaper industry, it had been a profession that had always been dominated by men, and was still so when I joined my first newsroom. And there were very few black professionals in newsrooms, particularly Southern newsrooms, when I started at The Atlanta Journal. And over the course of my career, that also changed. Now, most journalism professors will tell you that most of their classes are made up of women.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Mm-hmm. Well, as are many - most college grads these days are women, I guess.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Absolutely.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So particularly in the field of journalism, they see this?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: They see this in journalism, and women have moved up into pivotal roles in newsrooms, broadcast and print. There are managing editors, editors and publishers of newspapers throughout the country. Black professionals have also moved up into pivotal roles. The New York Times named its very first woman editor, Jill Abramson, just a few months ago. So while newspapers have lost their dominant position as the way most voters get their news, the flipside has been that there has been some real progress in terms of diversity in newspaper newsrooms over those years.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And do you think that, then, this is changing maybe the breadth or tone of things we read on the op-ed page? Can someone open an op-ed page today and see a topic they just may not have seen 20 years ago?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, yes. One of the things that absolutely delighted me over the course of my career was seeing that, again, the addition of women to newsrooms and the addition of black professionals meant that things that had not been considered news, say, in 1950 or 1960, were considered not only important enough to put it in the news pages, but important enough and interesting enough to talk about on the op-ed pages. One of the...</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Does an example come to mind?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Yes, indeed. Education issues, child-rearing and parenting issues, columns about how to balance workplace and family have all been talked about on op-ed pages over the last 15 years.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: In fact, I would argue that now most readers don't think that it's odd to see a piece on the op-ed page about a confrontation that a parent might have had with her child's teacher, or how I have - how best to deal with bullying in schools. 30 years ago, you never saw pieces about bullying in schools. And bullying, believe me, is not knew...</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Hmm. That is true.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: ...but now you do. And now, readers don't even find it odd to encounter those topics on op-ed pages. And I think that's a wonderful change.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Really interesting. OK. Let's get a call on the line here. Denise(ph) is in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Hi, Denise.</s>DENISE: Hi. Good afternoon. I read the op-ed pages pretty religiously. I think they help me articulate how I feel. I'm not a professional writer, and I really feel that I get more depth and understanding by reading things in a little longer format. I know that some people think that newspapers, particularly, are not - are kind of going the way of the dinosaur, but I don't think that's ever going to be true completely because we get so much more depth from a longer piece. And it helps me articulate my opinions better when I'm better informed.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thanks for the call.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: I'm delighted to hear that.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So, Cynthia, is that what's part of your job, is to tap into something that people may already feel, just haven't articulated?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, the good, persuasive writer is certainly tapping into a subject that interests people, and it may be a subject that many readers haven't thought about. But you want to write about it in a way that grabs their attention, interests them. And if you're, again, a good, persuasive writer, you want to encourage them to at least think about the subject from your point of view.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Now, over the decades, I was lucky enough to have a lot of loyal readers who would come up to me in the grocery store or at church or send me letters or email that said, that's exactly what I think. I'm so glad you said that. And that's really wonderful. I don't think you'll ever meet a columnist who will tell you that he or she doesn't enjoy getting that kind of email. But I also enjoy getting email or letters or phone calls from readers who said, you know, I enjoy writing your - reading your columns even though I rarely agree with you. You force me to think about an issue a little bit differently. You argue your point of view well. And I enjoyed hearing those comments too.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: I think this caller might have something to add there. Richard is in Wichita, Kansas.</s>RICHARD: Yes. Ms. Tucker, I've been fan for many years.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, thank you.</s>RICHARD: Back when you first started appearing on TV, I was always very impressed with your what were at that time seemed like center-left and very astute analyses of the complex factors feeding into social and political issues. And I noticed over time that it seemed like you, and for that matter the rest of the writers in op-ed, seem to drift off into hardened position, one side of the other, of the political spectrum. I mean, you seemed to have gone kind of into the far left, and you seemed to drift from analysis into moralizing. And I've seen that throughout the editorial pages. I wonder if you could explain what happened to the old careful, analytical stuff that I really used to get into that would analyze stuff, and whether or not you see this as a reflection of an electorate that is less and less educated because of the players, the educational system in the '60s and '70s and '80s.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Wow. A lot of issues there. Richard, thank you.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: I'm telling you, that's a tightly packed question. I can only respond about my own points of view, which I don't think my politics or ideology have changed over the last 25 years or so. That is not to say that my points of view on particular issues haven't changed. I have certainly changed my mind about some things, but I was center-left in 1985. I was center-left in 2005. And I'm center-left today.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: I think that if it - part of what - is it Richard - part of what Richard may have been responding to is seeing and hearing me in different forums. I try to be very thoughtful and analytical when I'm writing in newspaper column. When I'm on TALK OF THE NATION, I try to be very thoughtful or analytical. But I will admit that when I have appeared on television shows, where you don't have a lot of time to articulate a point of view, those cable shows that can be a little more like food fights, I often...</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: ...perhaps I seemed a little more strident because you only have time to get one or two sentences in, and those are not the formats that necessarily lend themselves to reasoned opinion.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. There's an honest answer. Richard, thanks for the call.</s>RICHARD: Thank you.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Let's get another one in here. Ruth is in Marietta, Ohio. Hi there.</s>RUTH: Hi. My acquaintance with Cynthia Tucker is only over public television when she appeared as a guest editor, and I loved her. I never had the privilege of reading anything she wrote. But the reason I called is to thank her for being herself. My husband was very old school. The smart people were the men. The smart people were the white people. And Cynthia Tucker was neither, and he thought she was brilliant.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Oh, that's a nice comment.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, that's wonderful compliment.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Ruth, thank you for sharing that.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Thank you so much.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You're listening TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Another question. Now we have Jeff(ph) in Sioux City, Iowa. Hi there.</s>JEFF: Hi. I - my question is, I don't understand why any newspaper would pay an editorial writer for their opinions when they can get all the opinions they want from their subscribers for free.</s>JEFF: My local newspaper paid editorials are so bias that I actually ended my subscription.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Cynthia?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, my goodness gracious. I would like to think as a journalist of some 30 years standing that I bring some knowledge to the craft that the average reader doesn't bring. I am better informed about many issues, not because I'm smarter than the average reader, but because I have had the luxury of being paid to be better informed about many issues.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: The good opinion writer is a reporter first. I spent my earliest years in this business as a reporter. When I was transferred to Washington a couple of years ago, I had time to cover Congress, cover the agencies up close. And much of my time was spent in reporting, and so I ought to know something about the subject about which I'm writing that the average reader doesn't because he or she doesn't have time to do the reporting that I've done.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Jeff, are you convinced?</s>JEFF: No. I understand her point of view. However, for every point of view, there's always an opposite point of view, and it is...</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: But what about the value of informed point of view, someone who's, you know, made the rounds and followed people?</s>JEFF: I understand. I'm not really - I'm not in - I'm not disagreeing with the professional editorial writer. I'm disagreeing with the local newspaper, which does not also publish the other side of the view.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Well, thanks so much for sharing, Jeff.</s>JEFF: OK. Thank you.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Let's get one more call in here, Gary(ph) in Marble, Minnesota. Hi there.</s>GARY: Afternoon. I grew up in northern Minnesota, fairly isolated. I never saw a black person until I was 16 years of age, and then I was in the hospital, you know, having a surgery done. And I consider Ellen Goodman and Sydney Harris to be a couple of my mentors because - as well as other op-ed people. But they brought in information to me which I would never have gotten from my local paper. And I'm just curious as to what or who your guest considers her mentors.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Nice question. Gary, thanks for calling. Cynthia Tucker, who are your mentors?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, I am a huge fan of Ellen Goodman, and I considered her a mentor from afar. Ellen was one of the women - one of the earliest women to have success as a syndicated newspaper columnist, and she was one of those who helped bring to the op-ed pages topics that had been off limits before. She talked about women's issues a lot. She talked about employment discrimination, sexism. And it was very encouraging to see a woman out there writing about those issues, writing about them forcefully and well. I met Ellen and she was always personally encouraging of me in my career.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: If I go back further, though, to think about - I've had the privileged of knowing a lot of good reporters and good opinion writers who were very encouraging of me in my career, including Bill Raspberry who work for the Washington Post and was syndicated a long time and is now retired. So I've been lucky to have met some of the best and have them give me a pat on the back from time to time.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We have just a moment left. Do you have any advise for aspiring, or now that we are in the era of the blogosphere, amateur op-ed writers?</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Absolutely. I'm - that's about - the career I'm about to embark upon is to give that advice in the classroom. And I think that there are some fundamentals that apply no matter what the medium is. I believe that those fundamentals apply to TV, radio, print, websites, and one of those is get your facts right, understand the difference between fact and opinion, make sure that your opinion is informed opinion, based on well-reported facts.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Cynthia Tucker spent two decades as a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. There's her last column on our website at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Cynthia, thank you so much.</s>CYNTHIA TUCKER: Thank you, Jennifer. And I'm still syndicated in several newspapers around the country.</s>JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Tomorrow, it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. Ira Flatow looks at the power of the placebo. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden in Washington.

Approximately 40 percent of U.S. voters identify as independents, giving them considerable clout with political candidates. Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page and George W. Bush campaign strategist Daron Shaw discuss who makes up the independent electorate, and if its influence is sometimes overstated. Read Clarene Page's Chicago Tribune column, "Swing Voters Are Still Partisan"

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. In New Hampshire tomorrow, anyone registered as an independent can vote in either the Republican or the Democratic presidential primary. President Obama does not have a lot of organized opposition, so all the attention and most of the independents will focus on the more competitive Republican race.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And political professionals will pore over the results for omens and portents. In a recent column, Clarence Page wondered why. Yes, the number of registered independents grows as the rolls of Republicans and Democrats dwindle, but research suggests that very few so-called independents switch back and forth and that they do not decide close elections.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you're a registered independent, call and tell us why, 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. Later in the program, the FAA plays Grinch and grounds a flock of whooping cranes being guided by an ultralight aircraft.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But first, the role of independents. Clarence Page joins us here in Studio 3A. His column is syndicated by the Chicago Tribune. Always nice to have you on TALK OF THE NATION, Clarence.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Always great to be here, Neal, thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And independents would seem by definition to be the persuadable middle that every politician wants to win over.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Well, they are persuadable, but they tend to not be persuaded very far, it turns out. This has intrigued me for years, that there have been studies - well, as far back as 1992 there was a book out called "The Myth of the Independent Voter." A team of about half-a-dozen professors pulled their research together and found that among people who declare themselves to be independent or - well, not undecided but who registered independent or who call themselves independent, that somewhere around 80, 85 percent of the time, they vote for one of the two parties.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: In other words, they don't want to be identified with a particular party, but they tend to vote with that party. I call it the Groucho effect. Remember Groucho Marx wouldn't belong to a club that would accept him as a member? This is a bit of a reversal. We've got voters who will vote for the candidates of a certain party but won't declare themselves to be a part of it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet how does that explain the rise of independents, as yes, Democrats still I think far outnumber registered Republicans, but both of their roles are diminishing as the number of independents increases.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: It's true, and I think there's a lot of different reasons people will give you. Certainly initially I'd say the suburbanization of America, we've been seeing this kind of a trend happen since after World War II. You know, the old urban, heavily immigrant populations, you know, you'd have the precinct captain and the ward boss, and there were services that you turned to the organization to provide.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Even Chicago, the queen of machine cities, your average precinct captain, if there are any around now, is a 55-year-old woman who shows up on election day to work the poll. But you don't have, in most wards, that kind of old organization that you really relied on.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: So it's not that important to declare yourself with just one party, and especially if you're a suburbanite; they're much more likely to be swing voters and certainly more likely to want to be - declare themselves to be independent of any particular party.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: For those who don't remember, yes, for jobs, for a turkey at Christmas, for a bucket of coal in the wintertime, real services, real things that meant things to real people.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Everything from birth to where your grandmother would be put into a nursing home, all these things you would turn to the organization, quote-unquote, to help you with.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: No longer a factor, so as the number of independents increases, it seems that then - I was fascinated by the research that suggested that, in fact, independents do not decide - you'd think they would still be the swing voters, but they don't decide close elections.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Yeah, this really surprised me. You know, there is a professor Alan Aramowitz of Emory University, who has been studying this using voting statistics, and he found that the - well, as he put it, in all three of the presidential elections since 1972 that were decided by a margin of less than five points, that the candidate backed by the independents lost.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: This was - this surprised me. You know, he's citing here Jimmy Carter in '76, Gerald Ford - sorry, Gerald Ford beat - excuse me, Gerald Ford won the independent vote but lost the election. Put it that way, OK.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Most independents voted for George W. Bush in 2000, but Al Gore got the overall popular vote. As you recall, he got the popular vote but not the state vote.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah, but that's fudging your statistics a little bit. The guy who got the independent vote got the big prize.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Yeah, but still, though, most of the - the one backed by the independent voters, though, did not get the majority of the popular vote. And in 2004, John Kerry, most independents voted for John Kerry, but he lost the overall election.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: What does that mean? What it means is that Karl Rove and others, who have often advocated firing up the base rather than reaching out for independents, they've got a point. In some elections, that works. If you fire up your base, get your vote out, it can be big enough that it will overwhelm the opposition and the independents, because independents also tend to have the least turnout, and they also tend to be the least committed, not just to a party but also to - well, less engaged with the whole campaign.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Interesting, on a day that the chief of staff leaves at the White House, a man seen as a conciliatory figure, wanted to reach out and appeal to that middle, as we were just talking a moment before the show, not a wartime consigliore.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: This is a time, yeah, where people are really looking closely at how important is it to reach out for independents or how important to fire up your base.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get another voice into the conversation. Academics, as we just heard, suggest the swing voter hardly exists. We would like to hear from a real political professional. Daron Shaw was a campaign strategist for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, also spent some time observing the Perry campaign last fall. Daron Shaw, nice to have you with us today.</s>DARON SHAW: Very nice to be here.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Daron Shaw is at the studios of member station KUT in Austin. So does that - is that swing voter mythological? Is it something that is worth appealing for, or, as Clarence just suggested, is a more productive tactic to fire up your base and get those who are going to vote for you to turn out?</s>DARON SHAW: Well, I think the thing that Clarence pointed out that's worth reiterating is that the distinguishing characteristic of independent voters is they're not that interested, they're not that involved, they're not that engaged with politics. So if you're a political professional and you're dealing with finite resources, and you have to make decisions about where you're going to invest dollars, and where you're going to invest manpower, you know, the idea of reaching out to independents, who may or may not show up, and if they do show up may or may not vote for you, can give you pause.</s>DARON SHAW: So you know, it's interesting that there's been this movement in the last two or three election cycles, and as Clarence correctly pointed out, I think Karl Rove is kind of given credit for this, although I don't know if he's, you know, the architect or godfather of it; a lot of people who have moved in this direction.</s>DARON SHAW: But the idea of sinking your resources into mobilization, which primarily targets, you know, sort of identifiable partisans and appeals to them, that that's become kind of a staple and maybe even the dominant perspective. And I find it kind of interesting that word out of the White House - and you have to read all these things with a dose of caution - but suggests that they're kind of moving in that direction. That's sort of what their thinking is. And I just find that fascinating.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We've seen that in the speech at Osawatomie and various other aspects. So it does look like that's the case and has interesting implications if that is true for the candidate in the Republican primary scene as the most likely to appeal to moderates.</s>DARON SHAW: Well, yeah, and I - you know, this is not something that I was overjoyed to find out, Neal, because, you know, I like the idea of crossing over, the idea of appealing to moderate of both parties, trying to reach some happy medium in between. I think polls certainly indicate that most American voters think that's a good idea, at least theoretically.</s>DARON SHAW: But insofar as how they vote, there's a lot of evidence that would indicate that trying to fire up the base, whether you're on the right or the left, can work(ph) . A big question for the Republicans right now is whether, in this series of debates that the candidates have been having, have they moved so far to the right that they've just left that much more room for Barack Obama to operate in seeking his re-election? We'll see.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, let's get some listeners in on the conversation. If you're registered as an independent, call and tell us why, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Jack's on the line calling from Chester in South Carolina.</s>JACK: Good afternoon, thank you for taking my call.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure.</s>JACK: I've registered - I've always been a registered independent. I don't think that independents hold much sway here in South Carolina, and I usually split my ticket in, you know, about every election that I cast a vote in.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And do they have open primaries in South Carolina? We'll know this as a fact in a couple of weeks, but do you know that?</s>JACK: No, sir, you need to be affiliated with one party or the other to vote in the primary.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And when you say you split your ticket, you might vote Republican for Congress and Democratic for governor, something like that?</s>JACK: Yes, sir, exactly.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Jack, so that's why you're registered - and do you think you have more - do you feel like politicians there are working for your vote?</s>JACK: I think they probably target their base more than anything else. You know, the reason why I'm not affiliated is because I do - I vote for who I feel like is going to represent us best, and so that usually leads me to split my vote.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jack, thanks very much for the call, and have a good time. You're going to be seeing some interesting advertising in the next couple of weeks. Daron Shaw, that closed primary system, obviously it's an open primary tomorrow in New Hampshire, independents can vote for Republicans or Democrats, closed primary, that changes things too.</s>DARON SHAW: Yeah, the distinction that we raise in political science is between an open primary, in which case there usually is no party registration - that is to say you register as a voter but not as a Republican, a Democrat or an independent.</s>DARON SHAW: Texas has a system like this, and that means that when election day rolls around, primary election day, you get to choose. You can either vote in the Democratic or the Republican primary. New Hampshire technically has what we call a semi-open or a semi-closed system. That is to say, out-partisans cannot participate.</s>DARON SHAW: So if you're registered Democrat, you can't vote in the Republican, and vice versa, but registered Republicans and – now, we're calling them independents but technically they're actually DTS-ers, decline to state, people who simply don't identify with one of the political parties - they are allowed to choose whichever primary they want to vote in.</s>DARON SHAW: And then a closed primary means that only registered partisans are allowed to participate. And you know, the research shows - I think this is kind of interesting - that there aren't the significant effects you might assume associated with open versus closed versus semi-open.</s>DARON SHAW: That is to say, you might assume that a closed primary process would produce more extreme ideological candidates, and we don't have a lot of evidence that that's the case, which I think always kind of catches everybody else by surprise.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Do closed primaries lead to larger percentages of registered voters being registered in one party or the other?</s>DARON SHAW: There's some evidence of that. But the difficulty is the states change the rules so frequently. In the South...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: They do.</s>DARON SHAW: Yeah, in the South we've traditionally had - Texas and other places - open primaries dating back to days of Jim Crowe. You know, if you didn't get a chance to vote in the Democratic primary, you had no say in the election process whatsoever. So it's sort of a vestige like - of those days.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll talk more about that. So there are local and regional differences as well. Stay with us. We're talking about the role of independent voters in primaries and general elections. 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. The polls open early tomorrow morning in New Hampshire, where voters are expected to grant Mitt Romney another win. Part of the reason he's expected to do well is his strength among independent voters in the Granite State.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Undeclared voters make up 41 percent of the electorate. A recent University of New Hampshire poll found many of those independent voters favor the former Massachusetts governor. They might still deliver a surprise tomorrow.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So tell us, if you're a registered independent in New Hampshire or elsewhere, why? 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: Here in Studio 3A, Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist Clarence Page. Daron Shaw is with us from member station KUT in Austin. He was a campaign strategist for George W. Bush in 2000, 2004. And let's see if we can get another caller in on the conversation. Tim(ph) is on the line from Reno.</s>TIM: Hi, nice to be on your show.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nice to have you.</s>TIM: Yeah, look, I discussed it with your screener, and I guess my position is just that both parties are bought and paid for and are fully owned. And the candidates, even if they come into office with good ideals, end up getting paid for and corrupted. So that's basically the reason why I'm an independent.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It sounds like election days, you go bowling.</s>TIM: No, you know, I'm still a very passionate citizen. I'm a very patriotic person, and I care about our country, and while I do think it's going in the wrong direction, I don't think it's beyond hope, and I do vote for the people that I think are the best candidates. And I try to consider everyone from both sides.</s>TIM: But I think the corporate control of our political system is destroying our democracy, and I think that is - if there's any issue that matters, that single issue is the one issue that matters most to me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK, did you vote Democratic last time, Republican last time? Will you again?</s>TIM: Yeah, I was telling your screener, I was a - I did vote for Obama, and I really believed in him, and I really thought it was a pivotal moment in our history, and it feels like all that energy has been squandered.</s>TIM: Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats and the presidency, and not a single conviction in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It's wholeheartedly disappointing. I may vote for him again by default, but I was telling your screener if Huntsman got through, and I don't believe he could, I don't believe a moderate can win the Republican nomination, but if he got through, I would have to take a very hard look at him. I really like a lot of the things he says.</s>TIM: And I believe he's a man of character. I just don't think he's going to get nominated by the Republicans.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think most Republicans think you're right. Tim, thanks very much for the call.</s>TIM: Thank you.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And it's interesting, Daron Shaw, if you're looking at what that caller just said, one of the things you might look at is turnout. It was interesting, for example, going back to what happened in Iowa, the Republican turnout just a skosh higher than it was four years ago, when there was considerable more energy on the Democratic side, and most people said wait a minute, that extra energy in the Republican Party this year largely due to the effect of Ron Paul, who did very well, finishing in third place, and is expected to do again pretty well and finish second or third in New Hampshire tomorrow.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That - if you're talking about the importance of getting your base out, the turnout in these primaries, that might be the number you ought to look at.</s>DARON SHAW: Yeah, I think there's some truth to that. I'm a little hesitant to make comparisons on the Republican side 2008 to 2012 just because, you know, it's interesting, the Republicans had so much energy, and there was so much dynamism on the right leading up to the 2010 elections, and I do think that's ebbed a little bit.</s>DARON SHAW: But the polling numbers we're seeing show that Republican voters are more engaged, more interested, more involved now than the Democrats and actually by a fairly wide margin. The question in this election cycle - and you can glean some evidence from the primaries - but the question is whether the Democrats get engaged, get interested and sort of match the Republican enthusiasm, or maybe exceed it, as they certainly did in 2008, whether that occurs over the next few months, right.</s>DARON SHAW: The Democrats don't have a contest going on right now. So some of this difference is sort of natural. But I wonder. I wonder where the enthusiasm is this time around. In 2008, it was with the Democrats. In 2010, it was with the Republicans, but as this caller just suggested, there are a lot of people out there who are like, well, we tried the Republicans, and we were disappointed, we tried the Democrats and were disappointed, and, you know, what's left?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Where do we go? This an email, Andrea(ph) in Berkeley: I still count myself a Democrat but registered as an independent after the Bush-Gore vote-counting debacle. I felt let down by the Democratic Party. For the sake of getting on with things, for the sake of the country, they failed to uphold the idea of democratic society.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I have been disillusioned by their ability to counteract the Republicans. I felt that Nancy Pelosi, upon the election of Barack Obama, made the comment he shouldn't expect an easy ride with complete support, or something to that effect, I cannot imagine any Republican in Congress making any comment to that effect if a Republican president was elected.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: A lot of disillusioned Democrats out there, Clarence.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Yeah, and that's not news. And you could see it in news reports. You can see if you walk down your block, probably, you know, and talk to people who voted for Obama four years ago. You'll hear people who say they're disappointed, or they will criticize this or that.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: At the same time, Barack Obama's approval numbers have been going back up in recent weeks as he has gone out on the stump and tried to fire up the base with more of a populist approach and more recently in the confirmation fights over Cordray, the bank, consumer protection advocate.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: These kind of fights tend to work well for him now in his approvals, but I think you're not going to see a lot of action, firing up Democrats, for a few more months because at the present time, like President Obama said when Jay Leno asked him about the - whether he was following the Republican debates, he said I'm going to wait and see who gets voted off the island.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Right now, all the attention is on the Republicans. So you're not hearing a lot coming from the Democratic side except with what they call, you know, truth squads, just talking about - giving their spin on the issues that arise.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: But right now, the best news for Obama is the jobless figures improved a fraction here in this latest report. He's hoping (unintelligible) the economy will continue like that. And that'll make a difference as far as a lot of attitudes people have who are feeling disappointed.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Email from Kate(ph) in Portland: I changed from Democrat to non-affiliated voter because I did not want to give my head count to either party. I would like the two-party system to fail because I think it is a big part of our problem. And Clarence, every election cycle, we hear this over and over: Why is there not a centrist third party? Why is there the two-party system that freezes everybody out so often?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Daron Shaw can tell us in a moment why all the election laws are written to make it almost impossible to mount a third-party, credible third-party threat in many states, but...</s>CLARENCE PAGE: You took my answer number one, but there's more.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: I was going to say number one is because the two existing parties have rigged the structure to make it hard for a third party to get rolling. But at the same time, though, you find that - well, look at Ross Perot. He did the best of anybody since Teddy Roosevelt, and he did it by having the right kind of message at the right kind of time.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: I think, frankly, this coming year is the best we've seen in memory for launching a third party. I'm not saying it's necessarily going to have a shot at winning, but you hear a lot of people, like a couple of callers we've had here, saying they're fed up with both parties, they want to see somebody like Ron Paul.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: I had one of my readers emailed me yesterday suggesting a Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich ticket.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: How about that, you know, a couple of feisty independents, one Republican, one Democrat. You hear a lot of people saying they want this.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: But quite seriously, I think that for the same reason that you are hearing a lot about these independent voters who weren't really independent, these folks who are fed up with both parties tend for whatever reasons not to be as engaged, probably the most likely not to show up at the polls if they really feel fed up right to the end.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: And so, you know, that's one big reason why third parties don't get started because it takes committed people to want to start one and keep it going.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, Daron Shaw, a committed person, Donald Trump says after his TV program ends in the spring, he might consider it. A lot of people don't take him seriously because you have to be the combination of a Talmudic scholar and particle physicist specialist to be able to figure out all of the machinations you need to get on the ballot in places like New York.</s>DARON SHAW: Yeah, well, it obviously - the Virginia rules obviously eluded, you know, the majority of the Republican field. So this is clearly a pretty complex endeavor, and that's within the party. You know, I had a professor one time when I was doing grad work who referred to parties as they're very much like public utilities, which is they're sort of quasi-public operations.</s>DARON SHAW: They're regulated very much by the states. You know, for instance, New Hampshire will count - the state of New Hampshire will count the votes in the Republican and Democratic primaries tomorrow, which is really kind of fascinating when you think about it, right?</s>DARON SHAW: I mean, why should, you know, the state machinery, the state governmental machinery be responsible for counting what's essentially a party contest? But the parties have bargained some of those freedoms that you get for kind of running their own elections and having rules as they see fit in exchange for the protection of the state, the state legislatures and the state statutory processes, to make it very difficult for competitors to enter the political market. And you see that in a state like Texas, where if you want to run as an independent candidate, you have to get, I believe, it's 50,000 signatures of registered voters who had not voted in the primaries, which I guess is a demonstration that this is now some sort of sore loser provision or something like that. But those sorts of laws existed across the board.</s>DARON SHAW: Actually, one of the most interesting consequences of Perot's candidacy - and to a lesser extent John Anderson in 1980 - is that they did manage to chip away at some of those laws. But I would also raise kind of a, you know, geeky, academic distinction here. I think it's very possible to see an independent candidacy for the president this time. That's not a third party...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: No.</s>DARON SHAW: ...you know? And I think that's an important distinction. You know, a third party is a, you know, Ross Perot or Donald Trump spends their billions of dollars financing 100 House candidates in districts across the country. And that's just something...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: It's got to be 435, if he hopes to get anything done.</s>DARON SHAW: I think they want - I agree, except if you've got 100 in the right places, you can have a lot of influence, right?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You can have a lot of influence, but you wouldn't have a majority.</s>DARON SHAW: No, but you could make the majority, and I think that's what you see in European countries, right? You know, you want to be the coalition partner.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ah, the kingmaker.</s>DARON SHAW: Exactly. And so that's why I say, you know, the heck, you might only need 40. But that's the kind of thing that we, you know, we did use to see not that sort of strategic kind of maneuvering, but that's the way parties used to be. Third-party movements, historically, in the 19th century, were mostly localized and kind of focused on congressional races and kind of representation of movements. And with Teddy Roosevelt and sort of ever since then, they've largely been - you know, with a few exceptions - essentially kind of personal vanity vehicles, you know, the expressions of people who had a political following or a lot of money and want to make a political point.</s>DARON SHAW: I think we're likely to see that again. Certainly, Trump is an example of that. But it would be interesting to see if you could get these diverse sets of interests that are just fed up with the political parties. If you could unite them, even if it was just on the basis of grievance, you know, opposition to the two existing parties, you might be able to do some damage. But I agree with all the points that have been made about how difficult it is to do that mechanically.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Daron Shaw, professor of government at the University of Texas in Austin, with us from KUT. Clarence Page is here with us in Studio 3A. He's a syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming to you from NPR News. Let's go to Stephanie. Stephanie with us from Elko in Nevada.</s>STEPHANIE: Hi.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, Stephanie.</s>STEPHANIE: I've been a registered independent for almost 30 years, my entire voting career. And my husband is now registered independent also. We're very interested in politics. I'm a poli sci major, and we follow elections and never miss one. And we actually go stand in line. We don't vote by mail. But we've never felt like we found a home with either party that, you know, they just - for the most part, didn't define us more than they did define us, so we keep all of our options open, and we get fewer phone calls that way also.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: That is an advantage I haven't thought about. Do you mostly vote one party or another?</s>STEPHANIE: It really depends. We were both from western South Dakota, and we've been 15 years in conservative northeastern Nevada, (unintelligible) local and regional elections. Usually, a Republican is about your only choice, so we tend to vote Republican in those elections, and we tend to vote our conscience in everything else. I'm a gateway issue voter. I'm rabidly pro-choice, so if you're not pro-choice, quit talking to me. My husband is a little more reasonable.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Stephanie, thanks very much. Interesting changes, as you watch the state of Nevada become more and more purple. Your previous iteration - parts of your life, it was reliably Republican, no longer the case.</s>STEPHANIE: Well, out here, it's still solidly Republican. We are completely different than we know in Vegas.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, I get that, no. But statewide...</s>STEPHANIE: Scarily so.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...is a little different.</s>STEPHANIE: Yes.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call. And that, Clarence, raises the issue of if you're a Democrat in Oklahoma, if you're a Republican in California, well, maybe some local places, yeah. But pretty much, if you wanted to have an influence on the election, you'd want to register as the party you don't believe in.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Well, that's certainly true for, I mean, Chicago has been doing that for years. If you don't register as a Democrat, then you don't have very many choices on primary election day, and you wouldn't...</s>DARON SHAW: You don't get your trashed picked up either.</s>CLARENCE PAGE: Well, thank you, you know, I mean, that does - both all machine enforcements have weakened considerably, thankfully in recent decades. But still, one thing we got to remember though, I'm more intrigued by her saying that she's rapidly pro-choice. I cannot imagine any Republican on a general election ballot in recent years that she could vote for who would not break that little litmus test of hers. And I think that's one big reason why you're seeing more people registering independent. I heard one - I think it's - I heard one gentleman from New Hampshire on NPR interviewed, saying he call himself a Nelson Rockefeller Republican...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Really?</s>CLARENCE PAGE: ...so he's registered as an independent up there because, you know, there are no Nelson Rockefeller Republicans anymore. That's kind of, what, extinct species just about. Moderation is not a virtue anymore in the Republican Party.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Except to some precincts of Maine perhaps. Daron Shaw, I wanted to ask you, how do you think it might change things, the California system, the primary is now going to be the top two vote getters will go onto a general election. If they're both Republicans or if they're both Democrats - it doesn't matter. Whoever emerges with the top two votes - two top vote getters in an open primary will go onto the general election. Could that change things?</s>DARON SHAW: I think it can change things quite a bit. I'll - this is one instance - this one particular arrangement is one instance in which I will actually proselytize to my class. And we in political science, especially in American politics, tend to be very pro-party. Now, a caveat - not necessarily these two parties, but we tend to...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We like the Whigs a lot, yeah.</s>DARON SHAW: Well, we like the notion that parties organize competition, that they enhance accountability, that they - in a generic sense, in a theoretical sense, parties really do promote democratic functioning.</s>DARON SHAW: And so when you see something like the blanket of the jungle primaries in which, essentially, they throw all the candidates in and the top two vote-getters go. One part of me sort of wonders why in God's name the parties would sign off an arrangement like this? I mean, maybe the dominant party would have an incentive to do it because they think they might get the top two spots.</s>DARON SHAW: But, you know, why the Republicans, for instance, would go along with something like this in California is beyond me. Now, of course, the justification is, is that it might produce more moderate politics, more appealing politics, that you might see increased turnout in the primaries, greater interest, which I get.</s>DARON SHAW: On the other hand, you know, if I'm the Republicans or Democrats, what do I care to rig a system that produced moderate candidates? You know, primaries are supposed to produce representative candidates within the context of the primary electorate. So I'm - I think it will have effect. I'm at a loss to understand why the parties would go along with these sorts of procedures, though.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Daron Shaw of the University of Texas at Austin. Clarence Page, a syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune. We thank you both for your time.</s>DARON SHAW: Thank you, Neal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Coming up: The FAA grounded a flock of whooping cranes. We'll find out why. Stay with us. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Operation Migration uses ultralight planes to guide whooping cranes in migration from Wisconsin to their winter home in Florida. But a Federal Aviation Administration investigation has grounded a flock of whooping cranes and an ultralight guiding plane.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: Endangered whooping cranes relied on human assistance to find their way from summer nests to their winter homes. There weren't older birds that knew the way, so scientists taught birds to follow an ultralight aircraft. You might remember how that procedure worked with geese in the movie "Fly Away Home." Now Operation Migration hopes to expand operations to re-open an Eastern flyway where whooping cranes disappeared in the 1800s. But this time, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the plane and thus the birds along the way in Alabama. More on that in a moment.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you have questions about humans and the migration of whooping cranes, our phone number is 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website. That's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Joe Duff is co-founder and CEO of Operation Migration and lead pilot. He joins us from Fort Perry, Ontario, and nice to have you on the program today.</s>JOE DUFF: Thank you very much. I appreciate being on it.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So how come the flock is on the ground?</s>JOE DUFF: Well, back in 2008, the FAA instituted a new set of regulations for a new category of aircraft. They used to be registered as ultralights, and now they are registered as sports light aircraft. And there are a bunch of rules with them, and one of the regulations is that you cannot fly a sports light aircraft for hire. And, of course, we have three pilots that do this. We have maintained that our pilots are paid for a long list of activities and volunteer their time for flying, but...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is open to debate.</s>JOE DUFF: It's open debate. All regulations are open to interpretation, and so that's where we are. FAA has not grounded us, though. We felt that we were in compliance with the regulations. And once they questioned us, then we voluntarily decided not to fly anymore so that we're not in violation of the rules.</s>JOE DUFF: We don't want to fly in violation of the rules. We want to be good citizens if we can, but we're working now with the FAA to hopefully get a waiver for this regulation. Of course it wasn't written to curtail wildlife re-introduction. It was written for other purposes, but the rule stands, and, in fact, that's probably why the waiver option is available.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So we shouldn't cast the FAA as the Grinch here.</s>JOE DUFF: No, I don't think so. I think, you know, we're getting good cooperation and a lot of support. They're trying to figure out a way around this for us, and - but we still have rules to abide by, so...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let us get back, though, to the larger issue of this migration route and the, well, just remarkable process that you folks use to imprint the birds with the idea that they should follow an ultralight aircraft.</s>JOE DUFF: Yeah. It's a convoluted project. It started way back in 1988 when Bill Lishman was the first person to ever fly with birds, and then I joined him in 1993 when we came back with the first migration of Canada geese to see if it was possible, and it's evolved now to help re-introduce an endangered species.</s>JOE DUFF: The problem, of course, is that, back in the 1940s, there were only 15 whooping cranes. That's all that existed in the world. They migrated from Northern Canada all the way down to Texas. And, of course, in Texas there's continued development pressure, and the spill that happened in the Gulf could threaten their habitat.</s>JOE DUFF: So that's a very precarious situation even though the flock now has grown to - I think the last count was 278 birds. So we're trying to establish a separate flock that's not subject to the same threats, independent one migrating from Wisconsin to Florida.</s>JOE DUFF: But the problem is whooping cranes learn a migration route by following their parents. It's passed from one generation to the next, and the last birds in the Eastern flyway were wiped out in the 1800s. So that migration route is also lost. It was lost until we discovered this method of actually using ultralight aircraft to teach them.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the method depends on the bird's instinct to imprint on the first creature it sees when it's born.</s>JOE DUFF: Basically, yeah. Whooping cranes are hatched in the nest, in a marsh on the ground, basically, and they leave the nest almost immediately and follow their parents out to forage for food. And if they don't follow their parents, they're lost. So that natural instinct to imprint is there, and we just substitute parent for pilot and make sure they imprint on us.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the pilot, in this case, wears what I've heard described as a baggy bird suit.</s>JOE DUFF: Yeah. Basically, we're trying to make sure these birds aren't familiar with humans. You know, a whooping crane is 5 feet tall and has a sharp beak and will defend itself if it feels threatened. So if you were to raise the birds just in normally dressed humans, talking in front of them, they would - when they're released into the wild, they would think humans is where the food comes from, so they would land next to them. So we isolate them. They don't - they - by the time our birds arrive in Florida, they will never - have never seen a normally dressed person.</s>JOE DUFF: They would have never been close to a car or tractor, or they will - never heard a human voice. So once they're released, those things are unfamiliar with them and they are afraid of them, and they are actually wild birds.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: So how do you - and you have been in that bird suit - how do you act around the birds?</s>JOE DUFF: Well, basically, you - the bag - the big baggy costume covers us head to toe. We look to through a Mylar visor, so they can's see our face. We don't talk anywhere near the birds. We carry an MP3 player and a little speaker that produces a vocalization. It's basically a bird call, a whooping crane call. And we carry a puppet that looks like an adult bird. We can feed them with the puppet. We communicate just as if we were birds. So it's a fascinating thing to do. If you would just stop talking and listen for a while, you are allowed into their social structure, and we're just part of that structure.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I'm told that indeed that player, the MP3 player, yes, it's got whooping crane calls on it so they learn to hear those, but it's also mixed in there is the sound of the engine so they'd learn to like that too.</s>JOE DUFF: Yeah, exactly. When the chick first starts to hatch, when they punch a whole in the egg, it's called pipping, and it can take a number of hours, thereafter, to finally hatch. And that's when the parents starts communicating with the chicks. So we play a recording of an adult bird call, and that's what called a brood call. And, basically, it means, you know, I'm OK. Everything is all right. We're here. And it's calming for the bird. And we also play a recording of the aircraft engine to get them used to it, so that they're familiar with that sound. It's not something that frightens them.</s>JOE DUFF: When they're about, maybe, a week or so old, we actually introduce the real aircraft and they get familiar with the shape and the sight and the sound of that. And then a little later on, we use what's called a circle pen. We have a pen that's about 30 feet in diameter, 2 feet high. We put the chick on the inside, the aircraft on the outside. Then we taxi around the perimeter. And we use a puppet that looks like an adult, and we can pull a trigger in that puppet and it will dispense mealworms.</s>JOE DUFF: So we tap on the ground, the chick comes over to find the food. We move the aircraft ahead and the chick follows the puppet again, and eventually the chick will be following us. So it's a long, slow process. It takes a huge number of hours, seven days a week. But once the birds are - all this takes place at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland, where they have the largest captive flock of whooping cranes, and that's where the eggs are produced. When the birds are roughly 40 days of age or 50 days of age, we transport them in containers by private aircraft to Wisconsin.</s>JOE DUFF: We spend the entire summer working with them. That's where they learn to fly and get conditioned to follow our aircraft. And then in October we start the migration. It usually takes us about three months to get all the way down to Florida. We monitor the birds over the winter. And then in the spring, they make the return migration on their own. And from then on, they're wild birds. Each year, we add a new generation, hoping to build the flock up to the point where it'll be self-sustaining.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And therefore, should something terrible happen to that flock in Texas, there will be a backup.</s>JOE DUFF: Exactly. It won't be the end of whooping cranes.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Joe Duff, co-founder and CEO of Operation Migration. If you got questions about the human assistance provided to whooping cranes, to learn their route on migration, give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Zack. And Zack is on the line from Iowa City.</s>ZACK: Hello. I - this is super fascinating. I wanted to ask how you choose the route? And, you know, most migrating birds have to stop and rest, and I wonder how you manage that. Do you have to find an airstrip near a marsh or near someplace where they can rest? Or can you land on an airstrip and then somehow take the birds further away? I wanted to ask about the resting places, but also bring out the topic of the awesome and interesting efforts to save species that are on the brink of extinction. But to couple that list, habitat restoration because if you save the species but they don't have a place to live, it's kind of a lost cause. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that too.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Zack, thanks very much.</s>JOE DUFF: Well, the first question is the migration and how we choose it. Basically, we're using a historic whooping crane migration. We know not the exact route, but we know they were in all the states that we pass through. And the wild whooping cranes are soaring birds. They may take off in one of those days with lots of fluffy clouds and thermal. They fly like a hawk or an eagle. They'll climb up on a warm column of air without expending any energy. They glide to the next one, and they can cover two or 300 miles that way.</s>JOE DUFF: We don't have the capacity to fly that way. We don't have the fuel range. We don't have the ability to soar the way they do, so we fly in the very calm air of first thing in the morning. And as we plow through the air, our aircraft creates a wake in the air much the way a boat would and the birds learn to fly on that wake. So our lead bird maybe only inches from the wingtip, and they soar along getting a free ride that way. That can only happen when the air is calm.</s>JOE DUFF: As soon as, you know, the winds start to pick up midday, then the wing bounces around too much. The birds can't follow it. In order to follow us, they have to move away from the wing. That means they have to flap fly and they get tired. So we only get maybe an hour or two the first thing in the morning. And birds fly around 38 miles an hour, so we can get maybe 50 to 100 miles on a good day. And at each stopover site, we have most of them around private property. People know we're coming. They've opened their homes and their property to us.</s>JOE DUFF: We have an area that's isolated where we can put the pen, and we tend them for the rest of the day and then go the next the day if the weather allows. On average, to cover the 1,285 miles from Wisconsin to Florida, takes us about 25 flying days, but it may take us upwards of 100 days to get those 25 flying days. So that's the process. Now, in the way back, of course, they can make it in a much shorter time when they're flying their own, so...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Because bad weather, you can't fly at all.</s>JOE DUFF: Bad weather, we can't fly at all. In fact, this year, we've had some particularly bad weather. We were stuck in Illinois at a private landowner's home for 16 days in high winds. We got a one-day break. We traveled 67 miles, and we were stuck for another 10 days, so...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. We're talking with Joe Duff of the Operation Migration. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Pat's on the line, Pat calling from Fleming Island in Florida.</s>PAT: Yes. I heard - I think I just read it recently that the FAA got involved and didn't like the idea of you guys flying for pay. Is there any truth to that?</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think you tuned in late. We discussed this earlier, but, Joe Duff, he'd like to clarify.</s>JOE DUFF: Yes, sir. The type of aircraft we fly used to be called ultralight aircraft. And there's a new regulation out, started in 2008 called the light-sport category. And that's the category our aircraft fit in, and the rules that go along with that category say that you cannot fly an aircraft like that for hire, and you cannot fly an aircraft like that for the furtherance of a business. And, of course, Operation Migration as a non-profit is a business. So as we said earlier, the rules are open to interpretation. We felt that we were compliant with the rules, but the FAA responded to a complaint and they have to investigate, and so they are doing that.</s>JOE DUFF: They are working closely with us, hopefully, to issue a waiver exempting us from those rules because of the benefit that it has to the American people. We're reintroducing an endangered species. We're promoting conservation of wetland habitat. We're promoting the conservation education. So, you know, through partner organization journeying north, we reached 1.6 million school-aged kids every year with lesson plans all based on this project. So it is - it has major benefits to the American people, so that's one of the criteria for an exemption.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Leslie, Leslie with us from West Michigan.</s>LESLIE: West Bloomfield, Michigan.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, go ahead, please.</s>LESLIE: Anyways, I got a ton of questions. Number one, what does a whooping crane look like? Number two, what happened to the original flock in the 1800s? Where they killed off by humans, or did they die from disease? Number three...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Why don't we pause there, Leslie, and let him get an answer to the first two.</s>JOE DUFF: OK. Well, a whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. It's about 5 feet tall. It has a 7 foot wingspan. If you've seen sandhill cranes - there's two kinds of cranes in North America and we have - coincidentally the most plentiful, which is the sandhill crane and the most endangered, which is the whooping crane. The sandhill crane is kind of gray all over. Usually, a whooping crane is pure white. It has black primary feathers and a red patch on its forehead, so it's a very distinctive-looking bird and what we call the white ghost of the wetlands.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the - what happened to the original flock?</s>JOE DUFF: Well, you know, back in the 1940s, a conservation isn't what it is now, you know? People didn't realize that, you know, our grandparents and our great grandparents thought that everything out there was theirs for the harvesting. And we now have a better understanding of conservation and natural resources. So, you know, back in the 1800s when they discovered that many birds were endangered, a lot of museums sent out trappers to get the last example so they'd have some.</s>JOE DUFF: So, it's just the whole concept that conservation has changed now and the, you know, the hunting regulations have come in. And, in fact, hunters are probably one of the biggest conservationists of all. The taxes they pay on hunting licenses and ammunition is what funds most of the conservation projects out there. So it's just a change of attitude, but basically, it was lost of habitat and overhunting before there were regulations, back when, you know, you needed to hunt for food.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: Leslie, you have time for one more.</s>LESLIE: Oh, oh, good. I was going to ask how did these regulations affect the previous migration, and I guess it's going to - when is this exemption going to be issued by the, you know, the next migration. And last and just real quickly, I'd like to get some more information for my daughter's class because they're studying environment and ecology and habitat and all that other stuff.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Thanks very much for the call, Leslie.</s>JOE DUFF: Well, as far that when this is going to happen, we don't know. The normal process, first, an exemption is 120 days. We're hoping the FAA will speed that up. We've got a lot of support out there and people are calling in and asking them to speed the process. But I think they're working hard. Hey, I believe they realize that this rule was not written to stop an endangered species re-introduction program, and we're just trying to find a way to word an exemption so...</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And on Leslie's last point, we'll put a link to your website on our website so she can find out that way.</s>JOE DUFF: Oh, please do, that'd be great. Thank you very much.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Joe Duff, co-founder and CEO of Operation Migration. You can go to NPR.org in a few minutes time, and there'll be a link to their website there. Tomorrow NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Kelly McEvers and Deb Amos will join us to talk about what's changed in the Middle East since the Arab Spring. Join us for that. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

NPR's Neal Conan reads from listener comments on previous show topics, including the moment that changed your life, differences between identical twins, and a proposal for a new calendar. Watch a Talk of the Nation listener's YouTube video of the "knuckle trick" for remembering the number of days in each month.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: It's Tuesday and time to read from your comments. The editors behind the six-word memoirs books launched a new project, "The Moment," and we asked you to tell us about the moment that changed your life. Meg Tatakahama(ph) in Hawaii emailed: I had taken it a break from accounting job in Hawaii to spend a summer volunteering at Fort Necessity National Battlefield in western Pennsylvania. I researched and put together my ranger talk and was assigned to give park tours. During one of my talks, someone in the crowd shouted out, I wish you'd been my history teacher. I also had several people ask me where I taught, what I tutor or mention how I sparked their interest. I returned to Hawaii and went back to school to get a teaching degree. Fifteen years later, I'm still teaching and love my job. I often think back to that comment from a stranger in a crowd.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: You can read what other listeners told us at our website at npr.org. We also talked last week about identical twins and what makes them different. Robert Lee(ph) wrote: My brother and I are identical twins. I'm married with one child, while my brother is a bachelor. My one-year old daughter has stranger anxiety but she loves my brother, so much so that we call him fake daddy because although she won't let anyone but mommy hold her if mommy's around, she'll actually go to my brother but not me.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: On the Opinion Page last week, we heard about a proposal to trash the current Gregorian calendar in favor of a calendar that puts holidays on the same day every year, among other changes. A caller during that segment asked why Sunday is treated as the first day of the week. Our guest said he didn't know.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: But Brandon Keim promised to look into it, so here's what he found. Some early religions treated Saturday as the week's seventh day, many still do. For them, Sunday was the week's first day. The same held true for European pagans whose astrologically inspired day names we've inherited. Sunday, the sun's day, was the most important and naturally came first. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine designated Sunday the first day of the week. Modern industrial culture made it widespread, if not quite universal.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And if you have trouble remembering which months have 30 days and which have 31 under the current calendar, you can check out the knuckle-counting trick. We've posted a link to a video at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. And a correction. I mislocated Tet, the Asian Lunar New Year, which in fact generally falls in January or February.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And during our conversation about the role and independence of unregistered voters, a caller told us that primary voters in South Carolina must declare a party affiliation. Alan Herd(ph) emailed from Hilton Head Island with a correction. South Carolina does not have registration by political party. Registration is nonpartisan. A registered voter may vote in the primary election of either political party.</s>NEAL CONAN, HOST: And one more correction. When we talked about Facebook's policy on photos, our guest misspoke. Facebook told us that their policy does allow parents to ask that photos of their children under the age of 13 be removed from the site.</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.

Britain is only six weeks away from its departure from the European Union, but it's not at all clear how Britain will leave the European Union. Many things, including a deal, are not set.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Goods are being stockpiled, cargo planes secured and the nation's spy chief is reportedly in talks to extend his term. This is just some of what is happening in Britain where it is now six weeks and counting to Brexit. Right now, it is not at all clear how Britain will leave the European Union. For the latest, we're joined by NPR's Frank Langfitt who is in London. Hey, Frank.</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Hi, Mary Louise.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So it seems every time you and I have talked, for months now, we discuss the possibility that Britain might crash out of the EU without a deal. That used to seem like a really remote possibility. Today, not so much.</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: And businesses are taking it really seriously, Mary Louise. There's a lot of stockpiling of goods in case there are big border delays - you know, big backups at the ports because of customs checks, tariffs, things like that. I was talking to a CEO at a transport company. And he said if you can find space right now in warehouses, you're going to pay a premium for it. Companies are also looking at cargo planes. I know a transport company that just bought a helicopter. The idea is to be able to get across the water and just not even use the ports at all. The government has also reportedly asked Alex Younger - he's the head of MI6, the U.K. intelligence network - to actually stay well on after his retirement date in November. And that's not about a deal or no deal but just the need for continuity at a time of great uncertainty and great change.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Why introduce more chaos when there's already so much up the pole?</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Exactly.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Yeah.</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: And I think the big question is, as you were asking, will the U.K. crash out? There are some signs that the prime minister might be bluffing on this. This week, the prime minister's chief Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins - he was overheard in a Brussels bar suggesting that the U.K. would not leave without a deal. And that's seen, probably, as a negotiating tactic to try to scare Parliament into backing her withdrawal agreement.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Speaking of Parliament, the Prime Minister Theresa May suffered yet another defeat there yesterday. What happened?</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Basically what happened is it was a vote on whether to support her plan to return to Brussels to try to get concessions on her Brexit withdrawal agreement. The vote was nonbinding. It has no legal force, but it's another embarrassment. Labor opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn - he said this was another sign that the prime minister's Brexit policy is just in disarray.</s>JEREMY CORBYN: The government cannot keep on ignoring Parliament or ploughing on towards the 29 of March without a coherent plan.</s>JEREMY CORBYN: She cannot keep on just running down the clock and hoping that something will turn up that will save her day and save her face.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Frank, as you said, this latest defeat for Theresa May yesterday carries no legal force. It's nonbinding, but it's awfully telling as, again, the clock is at six weeks and counting.</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Yeah. And what it really shows, Mary Louise, is that the prime minister here can't even control her own conservative party. And officials in Brussels - they already don't have much confidence in her ability to get legislation through Parliament. And after yesterday's defeat, they're going to have even less.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I'm struck watching from this side of the pond by what seems a remarkable lack of urgency. With all of this happening so quickly, where does the prime minister go from here?</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Within the next few days, she's expected to go back to Brussels. She's going to be asking for changes to that withdrawal agreement that she made with the EU. And what she wants to avoid is the U.K. getting stuck inside an EU customs arrangement, perhaps, forever. That's the biggest concern here in the United Kingdom. Brussels is not expected to give her much of anything. And then she has to come back to the House of Commons on February 27 to update them on where she is. Now, she could face more attempts to stop her from taking the U.K. out of the EU with no deal or even try to delay Brexit. But, you know, even if the U.K. wants to delay Brexit, she has to get all 27 EU countries to agree to that. And they're really not in the mood to bail her out. The EU will still want to see some kind of concrete plan on how to resolve all this.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR London correspondent Frank Langfitt reporting from London where the clock is ticking towards Brexit. The deadline's the end of next month. Thank you, Frank.</s>FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Happy to do it, Mary Louise.

Space scientists pay tribute to the Mars rover, Opportunity, which died this week after 14 years sending data back to Earth. The rover was expected to last only three months.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: This week, we got some sad news from NASA. The Mars rover known as Opportunity was officially announced dead. The original mission was to learn more about Mars. It launched alongside its twin, Spirit, in 2003 before we knew much about the Red Planet. Opportunity was expected to last on Mars for 90 days. But the little rover that could, as it's called, ended up staying there for 14 years, covering a marathon's worth of Martian territory.</s>DAVE LAVERY: This project has been a central part of my professional life for the last 20 years.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Dave Lavery, who's been on Opportunity's team since the very beginning.</s>DAVE LAVERY: These two robots - they became family members to us over the years. And Opportunity very quickly became known as Oppy. And both the rovers are female. They're not it. They're she.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Oppy provided a window into Mars, making discoveries along the way. One of the biggest - at one point, Mars had liquid flowing water, suggesting it could have sustained life. She also posed new challenges to the NASA team, including keeping track of Martian time.</s>DAVE LAVERY: We actually had special watches created that kept Mars time, and several of us who were working on both Spirit and Opportunity ended up wearing four different watches - one for Pacific Coast Time, one maybe for East Coast time, if our office was back home, one for Spirit time and one for Opportunity time.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The rover itself had some quirks. At some point during its 14-plus years on Mars, one of its wheel motors started wearing out, and the team, including associate administrator Thomas Zurbuchen, started to worry the wheel may get stuck.</s>THOMAS ZURBUCHEN: So what the rover actually had to do is go backwards. So most of this journey, that marathon, it did in reverse.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: In the end, the rover experienced a Martian storm so dark and cold the team at NASA thinks the internal batteries were altered beyond repair. Dave Lavery says Oppy's last communication with the team was grim.</s>DAVE LAVERY: I'm getting cold. It's getting dark. My battery levels are getting low. And sort of here's how fast things are dropping.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But Zurbuchen says the rover's legacy will live on, especially in helping plan future trips to Mars.</s>THOMAS ZURBUCHEN: Mars 2020 is the first leg of a round trip, the first round trip to Mars ever - a historic moment.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: On the final day of attempted communication with Opportunity, the team did what they had done every morning for 14 years. They sent the rover a wakeup song, like ground control does for human flight crews during a mission. But this time, they knew the rover wouldn't wake up. The song they chose - Billie Holiday's "I'll Be Seeing You." Thanks, Oppy - mission accomplished.</s>BILLIE HOLIDAY: (Singing) I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar place that this heart of mine embraces...

Reporter Howard Altman of the Tampa Bay Times tells NPR's Michel Martin about the shocking state of housing for many military families: privatized housing on bases full of mold and vermin.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: There was some worry the Pentagon might divert funds from military housing for the wall. Pentagon officials have made it clear they will not do this. Still, the issue of substandard housing on bases got new attention this week when military spouses testified before Congress about shocking conditions in their homes. And a new survey showed widespread dissatisfaction with privatized military housing, where 20 to 30 percent of military families live. Reporter Howard Altman with the Tampa Bay Times has been talking to military families at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. They told him some awful stories about housing conditions.</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: People talking about having mushrooms growing in their houses, having rodents crawling through the roof, air conditioning systems that are full of mold. There are respiratory issues. People get hospitalized. There are people with rashes, growths. And, in addition to having the problems, they complain about not being able to have a quick enough response when they reach out to the privatized housing officials.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: You'd mentioned privatized housing. There was a report that came out on Wednesday. It was a survey of nearly 17,000 military families. More than half said that they were dissatisfied with their privatized housing. Now, you mentioned that. How does privatized housing work?</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: Well, back in the mid-'90s, the military saw they had a huge problem in their housing - that it was in such bad condition that it would take about $20 billion and several decades to fix. So they turned to private contractors to come in to build housing, manage the housing. And, at the time, it seemed like a good idea. The military is not really in the business of housing people, per se. they're in the business of providing security for the nation.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I guess in the private sector, if you were dissatisfied with the conditions, and you were renting housing, you wouldn't pay the rent, right? So is that - that's not something that they can do.</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: That is not something they can currently do. They have an allocation out of their pay. It's called the basic allowance for housing. And that goes to the privatized housing companies. And if there's a dispute, they cannot just say, well, we're going to put our rent in escrow, and let's work this out with a third-party mediator. They are stuck. And you talk to folks here at MacDill, they've had to shell out thousands of dollars to move out and be penalized several months of their housing allowance. In some cases, that's $4,400. And that's a lot of money for people.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So wait a minute - I don't think I understand it. So you're saying - does the rent come directly out of their paychecks?</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: That is correct. And that's one of the big issues.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you mentioned that there were these two hearings. We just talked about this. There were these two hearings into the problem this week. How did Pentagon officials respond?</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: They had four officials from the Pentagon who were there, and they responded by taking a level of responsibility. And I particularly concentrated on the Air Force. And John Henderson, the assistant secretary of the Air Force for facilities, had a great deal of sympathy for the idea that there should be perhaps something called a tenant's bill of rights for these military families to give them more ability to deal with recalcitrant landlords and all the problems that they're facing.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is there a sense that this could affect force readiness?</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: Absolutely. I had two senior enlisted leaders in MacDill come forward. And they talk about how when you're downrange, and you're - have to concentrate on your job - you're in Afghanistan, you're in Syria, you're someplace where it's deadly and dangerous. And, all of a sudden, you get a call from home, and your spouse is saying that mushrooms are growing in the carpeting, the kids are sick with cough, there's black mold all over the place. Then, all of a sudden, you're not thinking so much about what you have to do in a very dangerous situation. You're thinking about your family. And so that is a definite issue of readiness.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That was Howard Altman. He is a reporter with the Tampa Bay Times.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Howard, thanks so much for talking to us.</s>HOWARD ALTMAN: My pleasure.

NPR's Michel Martin asks what reconciliation looks like. Her guests: Rich Harwood of The Harwood Institute, Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention and genealogist Sharon Leslie Morgan.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now it's time to step into the Barbershop. That's where we invite interesting people to talk about what's in the news and what's on their minds. Today, we want to talk about a subject that's been percolating in the wake of the news that the Virginia governor and the attorney general were blackface at parties years ago. Another Virginia official was the editor of a yearbook with many such racist photos in it. The - Governor Ralph Northam has been pressed to resign, even by members of his own Democratic Party. But instead of doing that, the governor sees a teachable moment.</s>RALPH NORTHAM: This is really an opportunity, I believe, to make awareness of this issue, to really have a frank dialogue and discussion about race and equity in this country.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: He was speaking to CBS News there. And one way he plans to do this is through a series of talks to engage the public on race, something of a reconciliation tour. Virginia Union University, an historically black institution in Richmond, will be his first stop. In a written statement, the university wrote, it is important to bring the community together to develop a plan to reach healing and reconciliation.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So that's what we wanted to talk about. What does reconciliation look like? How might it be achieved? And we've called on three people who have thought about this and who have worked on this. Rich Harwood is the president and founder of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. That's an organization that facilitates community discussions around difficult issues. He's with us in our studios in Washington, D.C. Welcome back.</s>RICH HARWOOD: Good to be with you.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Russell Moore is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He has been involved in dealing with the convention's complicated history on race. He is with us from his office in Nashville, Tenn. Thank you for joining us once again, Pastor Moore.</s>RUSSELL MOORE: Thanks for having me.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And, finally, Sharon Leslie Morgan is a genealogist who's been seeking racial reconciliation by tracing her multiracial ancestry. And she's with us from her home in Mississippi. And Sharon Leslie Morgan, thank you as well.</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: Thank you.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And I'm going to start with Rich Harwood. You wrote a very interesting piece for your blog, in which you said that confronting racism and identity in this country will involve sorrow and that the conversation will not be polite. And so I wanted to ask you about that. Is this governor - is this tour, this series of discussions that the governor - that Governor Northam's talking about - is that a good first step?</s>RICH HARWOOD: Well, I think he faces a fundamental choice. If this is about political survival for his governorship, no. If this is about him being an instrument of society, potentially. And I think what he needs to be prepared for is that this will not be a civil conversation. We can't ask people to engage in civility here because that just means lower your voice, don't be emotional. This is an incredibly emotional topic. People feel loss. They feel anger. They feel a sense of rage. This has been coming for generations. And I think he needs to be prepared for a very hard-nosed, tough emotional conversation that's coming his way.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is that going to be fruitful?</s>RICH HARWOOD: I think we can only engage in a fruitful conversation if we allow this kind of sorrow, this kind of emotion, this rage and anger to come forward. Otherwise, folks who have been discriminated against, who have dealt with inequities for their lives will say this is yet another effort in lip service from a white politician who's simply trying to survive, politically.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, you know, Pastor Moore, you've already done some hard work on this issue yourself. I mean, you've said that Southern Baptists have been complicit in racism and bolstering racial pride among Southern whites. And I wanted to ask you - how has that gone as you have tried to address this at the convention? What have your experiences been?</s>RUSSELL MOORE: Well, I see the best of times and the worst of times happening, simultaneously, as they often do. On the one hand, I see God moving many congregations in a very different direction, toward healing and reconciliation and justice. I also, though, am shocked that I will receive white supremacist hate mail that reads almost exactly like that that my predecessor would have received in, say, the 1950s or 1960s.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's interesting. I want to hear more about that and how you get people to the table. Let me go to Sharon Leslie Morgan, though. You've been able to find the names of more than two dozen people in your family who were enslaved. And some of those stories and the stories of their descendants, both white and black, are truly painful. I mean, for example, you talk about your white grandmother, who was disowned by her family when one of her children was born with brown skin. I mean, that's just, you know, one story. And yet you've said that tracing your roots has helped you confront the trauma that slavery and racism imposed on your family. I mean, how?</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: The first thing that you have to do is that you have to remember that, first, it hurts. And then, it heals. And one of the things we must do is go back and confront this history that is the legacy that we're living with today. The reason that we have racism and all of the acrimonious feelings between people of different races has a great deal to do with the history of this country and it having been born as a country that embraced slavery. So you have to go back into the past. You have to confront it. You have to experience the pain. And then, you have to use that in a productive way to move forward to the healing.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Pastor, I want to go back to that. And, you know, Sharon just said you have to confront it. As you've just told us a lot of people would really prefer not to. How do you get people to the table?</s>RUSSELL MOORE: Yeah.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean, is it - do you find that it requires the deep commitment of religious commitment to get people to the table? And even then, when they have that, do they really want to engage? Like, what do you do to get people to the table who are not that interested?</s>RUSSELL MOORE: Well, both of my fellow guests have said something that I think is exactly right, which is the necessity of lament. Jesus said blessed are they who mourn, and a great deal of this has to do with those who are leading and speaking, making sure that people, especially majority culture people, understand that history alone doesn't take care of this.</s>RUSSELL MOORE: Sometimes, I will hear white Americans say, well, it's 2019 as though, simply because it's 2019, all of these issues are passed and behind us. And so that means standing up and saying how did this happen. How were people able to be so blinded to something as basic to both the Christian vision of reality and to the American founding documents of the dignity of all human beings? How was that missed? And what, then, are we missing? And how can we build something that is not just about getting along with one another but actually loving one another and behaving toward one another, justly? That's - what I find is that, usually, the people who are grappling with the question and asking the question - where do we go from here? - are usually in a pretty good place. They're moving in a good direction. It's the people who don't think that this issue is even one that should be talked about at all or that it's a distraction - that's what really worries me.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Rich, what about you? How do you get people to the table? I know that you've had some difficult community conversations in the past. I mean, for example, I know that you worked in helping the community figure out what to do about the site of the former Sandy Hook Elementary School. You were part of the facilitation process there. But those were people who were highly motivated to be part of the conversation, and one assumes that they at least approached it with some semblance of goodwill toward each other. I mean, what about when it isn't that, when - what about it when it's with what Pastor Moore said, that there are a lot of people who said, you know what? That was then. This is now. My family didn't own slaves. I have nothing to do with this.</s>RICH HARWOOD: Yeah. I think - look, I think if we think that this conversation is going to ramp up really quickly and we want to scale it really fast, I think that's a mistake. I think a better strategy is slow and steady. And what we want to do initially is start to bring people together in small groups who are willing to come together and let that ripple out over time and build our capability to do this. Look at - the heart of this is going to be our civic confidence, our belief that we can do this together and do something productive. I think that's going to have to start small. It can start to build from there and ripple out. And we can begin to bring more and more people into the conversation over time. We can't start all at once. It's a big mistake. It won't work. And we're looking for trouble if we try to do that.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. Sharon, what about you? I know that you've been involved with a group called Coming To The Table, an organization that acknowledges and seeks to heal from the racial wounds of the past. I'm reading from the, you know, statement...</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: Right.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And you contributed to this really interesting volume called "Slavery's Descendants," which is coming out soon. It's published by Rutgers University Press, which actually has essays from people who were people who know that they are related to people who enslaved people and people, like yourself, who know that you are related to descendants - who are descendants of people who were enslaved. How has that worked for you in getting people to participate in these conversations or have these kinds of dialogues?</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: It's worked very well for us. And I think, on one hand, I kind of agree with Rich when he says that these are things that happen. There has to be a change of heart by individual people. So those are things that happen on a very small platform, and that does ripple outward. So you need enough people to change their hearts and make a change in the society. So Coming To The Table has been one way of doing that because we now have thousands of people around the country who are interested in this model of being able to take the descendants of people who were enslaved and unite them with the people who are descendants of those who enslaved them. And it may sound counterintuitive to make that that connection, but it really does work because nobody has had a way to relieve themselves of this moral burden.</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: I'm also agreeing with Reverend Moore. This is a moral imperative. If you believe in humanity, if you have love in your heart, if you believe in Christian principles, if you have a moral compass, it - you have to engage this conversation. And I am feeling very positive because as I go around the country and I speak and I see the people who are buying my books and the people who attend our sessions when I do talks, I am seeing a yearning in people that really do want it to change because we're tired of the acrimony, you know? We're ready to do re-embrace this moral principle and to start really caring about each other and getting over this past.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I...</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: But it's not over, and it's got to be over if we're ever going to make it, if we're ever going to heal.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to have to leave it there for now. Let's get back together again when these talks proceed and just see how they're going. And that's - that has been Sharon Leslie Morgan, writer and genealogist. She's the co-author of "Gather At The Table: The Healing Journey Of A Daughter Of Slavery And A Son Of The Slave Trade." Rich Harwood is with us, president The Harwood Institute. And Russell Moore was with us, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I thank you all so much for starting our conversation about this.</s>RICH HARWOOD: Thanks for having us.</s>SHARON LESLIE MORGAN: Thank you. This was good.

Veteran Vatican watcher John Allen tells NPR's Michel Martin that the defrocking of former U.S. cardinal Theodore McCarrick is the most severe form of punishment for a cleric.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now to that very disturbing story from the Vatican, another warning that this may be upsetting for some to hear. The former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was defrocked by Pope Francis today. Vatican officials found him guilty of sexual crimes against children and adults, including soliciting sex during confession. McCarrick is the highest ranking person to be expelled from the Catholic Church in response to the clerical abuse scandals. John Allen is the editor of Crux. That's an online newspaper that specializes in coverage of the Vatican and the Catholic Church. We reached him in Rome. John Allen, thank you so much for speaking with me.</s>JOHN ALLEN: It's my pleasure.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And I'm going to start by asking you what it means that McCarrick was defrocked. And I'm going to ask you what it means for him, personally, and I'd like to ask you what it means on a broader scale.</s>JOHN ALLEN: Well, you have to understand that for a cleric that is a priest or a deacon in the Catholic Church to be dismissed from the clerical state or, in layman's terms, to be defrocked is, essentially, the death penalty. It is the most severe penalty that the church can impose. It means that Theodore McCarrick cannot say Mass. He cannot hear confessions. He cannot perform baptisms, I mean, all of these things that priests do over the arc of their entire career and are sort of foundational to their identities. So it is an extraordinarily serious and severe form of censure from the church. That's what it means for him, personally.</s>JOHN ALLEN: In terms of the sort of policy dimension of this, quite clearly, imposing the death penalty on a cardinal is intended to send a signal of strength and resolve by Pope Francis and the Vatican about seriousness with regard to the clerical sexual abuse scandals that have been such a cancer for the Catholic Church over the last 30 years. We should say that all of this comes on the eve of a keenly anticipated summit for presidents of bishops' conferences from all over the world and other senior church officials that will be opening in Rome on Thursday, precisely focused on those clerical sex abuse scandals and designed to sort of move the ball towards resolution. So, quite clearly, this is calculated by the pope and his Vatican team to sort of set the table for the discussion in that summit.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I wonder if the decision to rebuke McCarrick in this very serious way, as you have described, affects the experiences of survivors moving forward.</s>JOHN ALLEN: Based on what I have been picking up, the censure of Cardinal McCarrick that was announced today, while it is welcome - because survivors, above all, want to see justice for the crimes that were committed against them. But I think they would say it's not enough. It's not enough to impose accountability for the crime of sexual abuse. There also has to be accountability for the cover-up of that crime. And the question that remains unanswered today is - who was aware of the kind of behavior that ex-Cardinal McCarrick was engaged in? And why didn't they do anything about it? That question has not been answered by the verdict that was delivered by the Vatican on Saturday. And, until it is answered, I suspect most survivors and most reformers are going to say that the church has not yet completed the job.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is John Allen. He's the editor of the online newspaper Crux. He's also written a number of books on the Vatican and Catholic affairs. He's a former senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter. We reached him via Skype in Rome. John Allen, thank you so much for talking to us.</s>JOHN ALLEN: You are very welcome.

Following President Trump's declaration of a national emergency over border security, NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., about its impact on funding allocated for military.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump has declared a national emergency because he says that's what it is - an invasion, he called it today, of drugs and criminals coming into our country.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: So we're going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we're going to do it. One way or the other, we have to do it.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The move allows the president, either through emergency powers or through administrative action, to free up an additional roughly $6 billion to fund a wall at the southern border. Most of that money will come from the Defense Department budget.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. His district in Colorado includes two Air Force bases, the Air Force Academy and Fort Carson. And he joins me now. Congressman, welcome.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Hello. How are you?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I'm well, thank you. And I wonder how you're feeling about billions of dollars being taken from other Defense Department budget lines and diverted to building a wall.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Well, let me say first of all, Mary Louise, I think the president had no choice to declaring national emergency. Congress did not do its job in recognizing the gravity of the situation and appropriating the proper amount of money to address it. Now, when it comes to him declaring an emergency, he's going to use - tap into several pots of money like drug forfeiture money - I think we would all agree with that - or drug interdiction money. This seems to fit that category.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Although there is a certain irony in that one of the reasons he cites for wanting to build a wall is to fight drug trafficking and the drug trade, and he's taking money from - he's taking money away from those efforts that were already existing in - under the Pentagon umbrella.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Well, except that when you build a wall and stop the flow of illegal crossings, including drug carriers, that will help curtail the drugs coming into our country. So to me, that's appropriate. Now, you asked about military construction. I do want to see what those projects are. That's my one concern in this whole area. I would hope he would identify other pots of money before he got to military construction because those are well-thought-out projects and those are years in the pipeline.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: This emergency declaration is pulling 3.6 billion from military construction.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: That's right. And if he gets to that because he's identified other money that I think will be used first, we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. I know people are going to try to tie it up in the courts, and it'll be months and months before we actually can probably access it - before he can access the money.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let me ask you, as a member of Congress, a coequal branch of government, does it concern you that in declaring this national emergency, the president is circumventing Congress?</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Well, I will agree that any time a president declares a national emergency - and this is - since 1976, I believe, there is - this has been done 58 times. This is No. 59. The people's representatives need to be vigilant. We need to make sure that it's a genuine emergency. Now, to me, this passes the test.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: As you know it's controversial, whether this is an emergency or not. People fall on both sides of the line. And the law that you stated that, the 1976 law, doesn't explicitly define an emergency. So the president does have this power. But to my question, Congress, you just explicitly voted to deny him these funds.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Well, I didn't.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I know that you voted against it, but the overwhelming vote in Congress was that this went through.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Yeah. And maybe those who voted the other way would feel differently. But I have accepted that this is an emergency and that it's getting worse, Mary Louise. The composition of people, there's a lot more minors and families coming - the caravans with thousands of people. That's a new process. So I'm seeing that the problem is actually getting worse. So I accept the president's declaration.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And just - we just have time for a sentence - a one-sentence answer - but to the question of whether this raises real questions about democracy and coequal branches of government.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: There's no crisis here. I think everything is working as it's intended. I will be supporting the president.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: All right. Congressman, thank you.</s>DOUG LAMBORN: Thank you.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks to Liza Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program, about presidential powers during a national emergency.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: In his announcement today declaring a national emergency, President Trump repeatedly mentioned that previous presidents have called national emergencies.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Well, actually, it was 1976 when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act that this presidential declaration entered its modern form. That act was intended to rein in presidential powers that had been accumulating over time.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Our next guest has written that, quote, "by any objective measure, that law has failed." Liza Goitein is an expert on emergency powers at the Brennan Center for Justice. She's also written a piece in The Atlantic titled "What The President Could Do If He Declares A State Of Emergency." Welcome to the program.</s>LIZA GOITEIN: Thanks very much for having me.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So now that the president has declared a state of emergency, based on your understanding of the law, does the current declaration meet the requirements of the statute?</s>LIZA GOITEIN: All that the president has to do to declare a national emergency is to sign an executive order that states that he is declaring a national emergency and publish that order in the Federal Register - that's it. He doesn't have to explain why he's declaring emergency. He really just has to sign a piece of paper in order to activate the emergency powers that he has access to under a national emergency.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Can we talk about what the new actions and powers are that would be available to President Trump now that he has made this declaration?</s>LIZA GOITEIN: When the president declares a national emergency, he has access to powers contained in more than a hundred different laws that Congress has passed over the decades. And those laws basically represent Congress's best guess as to powers that the president might need in an emergency, in a situation where Congress didn't have time to act. In this instance, the president is looking at laws that allow the secretary of Defense to move money around within the department during national emergencies.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So we mentioned the National Emergencies Act in our introduction. Can you talk about what that law aimed to do?</s>LIZA GOITEIN: The law was intended to rein in the president's use of national emergencies by requiring the president to renew emergencies every year - so they would expire if he didn't renew them - and by giving Congress the authority to vote to terminate a state of emergency. Now, originally, Congress could do that by passing a concurrent resolution that the president didn't have to sign. But the Supreme Court held that these legislative vetoes, as they were called, were unconstitutional. So that's been changed.</s>LIZA GOITEIN: Now Congress has to pass a joint resolution that the president has to sign. And if the president vetoes it, as he's likely to do, then Congress has to muster a veto-proof supermajority in order to terminate the state of the emergency.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What are the risks of the executive branch having this kind of power?</s>LIZA GOITEIN: The risks are that these laws are - some of them - are incredibly potent in terms of what they allow. In this case, we're talking about moving money within the Department of Justice to do something that Congress really doesn't want the president to do. That's bad enough. But there are powers here that would allow the president to shut down communications facilities, radio stations, to freeze Americans' bank accounts and seize their assets.</s>LIZA GOITEIN: There are powers that allow the president, believe it or not, to suspend the prohibition on government testing of chemical weapons and biological agents on unwitting human subjects. So it's really extraordinary what some of these powers would allow. And if it's the case that the president can simply make up an emergency anytime he wants in order to gain access to those powers, then we're in real trouble.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's Liza Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice. Thanks for speaking with ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.</s>LIZA GOITEIN: Thanks again for having me.

President Trump declared a national emergency in order to secure money to build a border wall. Legal challenges and pushback even from some within his own party await Trump.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The government will not shut down when the clock strikes midnight tonight. President Trump has signed a border security and government funding bill that will keep the federal government open for business. It delivers far less border wall funding than the president demanded. And so also today, Trump followed through on something he's been hinting at, threatening for weeks. He signed a proclamation declaring a national emergency that will allow him to take money from other parts of the government to build his border wall.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's been signed by other presidents. From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power. There's rarely been a problem. They sign it. Nobody cares. I guess they weren't very exciting.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let me bring in NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Hey, Tam.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Hi.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Start with the president - with the precedent because he's right. Presidents have done this before.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Yeah, that's right. Since the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, 59 emergencies have been declared. Some 30 are still on the books. But none have been like this. They were generally all in line with congressional intent and related to situations widely agreed to be emergencies, whereas in this instance, you know, Congress has clearly decided not to give the president all the money he was asking for. So he is using an emergency to get around the limitations that were placed on him. Numerous members of Congress, including a handful of Republicans, are saying that this is executive overreach in this form.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And what arguments did he marshal to support his position in declaring this emergency proclamation? I was watching some at the White House today. And he was describing the situation at the southern border as a crisis, as a national emergency, the argument he has been making for weeks.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Yeah. It is exactly the argument that he has been making for weeks. There was nothing new there. He, as he has done, cited statistics, often inaccurately, said a wall would help prevent drugs from coming into the country and stop human trafficking though various experts on those matters question his assessment of how useful a wall would really be. And he also said a number of things that could ultimately undermine the case that he's trying to build that this is an emergency that requires an immediate response, like this answer he gave to a reporter's question.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster. And I don't have to do it for the election. I've already done a lot of wall for the election - 2020.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: It's this amazing thing where the president often just seems to read the stage directions. He says what, you know, he may be thinking but the kinds of things that you don't necessarily say out loud.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let me ask you to get technical for a second here the extra money that this will unleash - how exactly is he doing it? Where's it coming from? How much is he going to get?</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: So the total would be about $8 billion for border barrier building - $1.4 billion of it would come from the funding bill that he signed today. But the biggest additional chunk, $3.6 billion, is what required the emergency. That would come from military construction projects. He said that he was talking to some folks about it, and some of those didn't sound too important to him. Our Tom Bowman says that the Defense Department is going to look to overseas projects first because many of these construction projects, including for military family housing and other things like that, have a constituency. And members of Congress are not going to like it.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And meanwhile, quickly, legal challenges - we're talking to the attorney general of California elsewhere on the show. He's already come out and said today he's going to file suit to stop this.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: And President Trump has indicated he's expecting it.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith, thank you.</s>TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: You're welcome.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with political commentators, David Brooks of The New York Times, and Matthew Yglesias of Vox, about President Trump's national emergency declaration on Friday.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So now we're going to talk more about the political response to all of this, and for that I'm joined by Matthew Yglesias of Vox. Welcome back to the studio.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Glad to be here.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: And David Brooks of The New York Times - welcome back, David.</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Good to be here.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: OK, so let's talk about the response. First of all, it was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who announced this yesterday, and people were trying to read something into McConnell being the one to say this since it had been reported that he was against the idea. David, what was your read on what the majority leader was doing?</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Well, I've lived through many - we've had many national emergencies - Valley Forge, Pearl Harbor, now the battle for Donald Trump's ego. I don't think this is anything like a national emergency. It's just - he's awarding himself a performance trophy because he lost the shutdown. And so there's more to me about his state of mind.</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: I don't think there's a Republican senator in the Senate who in - deep in his heart of hearts thinks this is anything other than a gross attack on any concept of conservative governance and the Constitution. But this was the prize they gave Trump in exchange for really not inviting him to be part of the - to the budget negotiations.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Matthew?</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Well, I mean, it's extremely telling that in the actual budget negotiations, they not only didn't give the $5.6 billion that Trump had been asking for. They came up with a money - money for border security that was less than the deal he had rejected months ago, right? So you can tell Senate Republicans were not that invested in this whole concept. And I think they reached the conclusion that letting Trump or saying that they would support the emergency declaration was the quickest way out of this. And then we're going to leave it for the courts to sort out.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Now, we know that Democrats have said that they want to essentially file a resolution that could block the president from doing this. We also heard Nancy Pelosi's response, which was very specific. I want to play it for you.</s>NANCY PELOSI: Let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That little not-so-subtle reminder that this could be a tool that could be wielded by a Democratic president, and you guys should all think about that - is this a moment for Republicans to reassert authority over the party, to basically take that step. If you say, David, that they are all against, are we really going to see them be - put the vote on the line?</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: They probably will not. They should, but they are supine. They did have the guts not to really invite anybody from the White House to negotiations. They do not have the guts to stand up to Donald Trump publicly. And so you're seeing a lot of Republicans who warned him not to do this suddenly embracing it.</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: You'll see an awful lot of Republicans who were really apoplectic when Barack Obama did something remotely like this about immigration and the DREAMers, but they - the - it has been an erosion of institutional power in Congress over the last 20 or 30 years. I do not know why they don't seize power. They were elected just like anybody else. But for some reason, they almost run away from any seizure of their constitutional rights.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Matthew, I don't know what that leaves you.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: David Brooks calls everyone supine and says, give it up, guys.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: I think it's important to understand, though, that Pelosi and Democrats to some extent are posturing here. There's no legal mechanism through which a president could use a state of emergency to take meaningful gun control actions, right? I mean, this is a real statutory authority. The emergency is fake.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: But her use of that example is not subtle, right? I mean, she's trying to use some keywords there that should terrify conservatives.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Exactly. I just - I don't think it's realistic. I mean, don't expect the next Democratic president to actually do that. I think what you should expect is a new round of appropriations fights, right? Trump is using emergency declarations to raid a military construction fund and a drug interdiction fund in order to do wall construction.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: If Democrats lose in the courts, they're going to come back to Congress next year, and they're going to attach a legal stipulation to the military construction fund saying under no circumstances going to be used for border security or else they're going to not want to appropriate money for military construction at all. There's no ultimate loophole out of the conflict with Congress here.</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: I'm not quite sure I agree with that one. When you degrade norms, when you degrade standards, they tend to continue to degrade.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That was my question, right? Is this a tenting tool for the next party basically?</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: For any president who wants to appropriate money to some favorite project, he has now the established credibility. And he's - he can do it or at least he has the precedent. And so I tend to think he will do it. This is just one more step in the degradation of institutional power. Once - Congress has the power of the purse, and if Congress is not willing to enforce that power, then presidents are going to grab it again and again and again.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: OK. The potential block to that - right? - the courts. And see you in court was a refrain used by more than one Democrat today, including California Governor Gavin Newsom. What are the political risk for the president that come with yet another protracted legal battle, one he clearly acknowledged today in his speech?</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: I mean, it seems like this is what Republicans are sort of hoping for is that they can - instead of them having a conflict with the president, that the courts will put a stop to this that will prevent Democrats from using this as a precedent in the future. And they can all just sort of say they're mad at John Roberts, right?</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Yeah. And one of the odd things here is it's - this is the perfectly awful political judgment of Jared Kushner. Before this, he was in favor of firing Comey. And so everyone's sort of casting blame on him. He ginned up his father-in-law. And I do think Republicans are secretly hoping the courts will just make all this go away.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: One thing of note - people asked the president about whether he'd been listening to the debate on conservative media, how much it had shaped his views on the national emergency. Here's what he had to say.</s>PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They don't decide policy. In fact, if I went opposite, I mean, have somebody - Ann Coulter. I don't know her. I hardly know her. I haven't spoken to her in way over a year. But the press loves saying Ann Coulter.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: He ran through the names of many others - right? - on the conservative media side. And it felt like it - it felt like he felt like he had to address this. Has that pressure been more real than he's acknowledging here?</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: I think a little. I should say I was - my mentor was William F. Buckley, and now Ann Coulter's the chief conservative columnist. This is decline. You know, I do think there's been a shift - and this has been constant throughout the Trump era. Every conservative magazine is against this. National Review, they're all writing very strong editorials against this. In the public - the broadcast TV media, they're a lot more on his side. And he has to - I think he weirdly fears an Ann Coulter run from the right in the primaries.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Yeah. I mean, he's clearly interested in what conservative media has to say. And, you know, he may not have spoken to Ann Coulter in over a year, but it's widely reported that he speaks with Sean Hannity very frequently. He regards Fox News hosts in particular as critical allies.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: And they had been critical of the compromise deal.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Exactly. And this is important to him to maintain their support.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's Matthew Yglesias of Vox and David Brooks of The New York Times. I'm sure we'll be talking about this more in the future. Thanks, guys.</s>DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Thank you.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says President Trump will sign into law the border deal reached by Congress this week, but he will also declare a national emergency for additional funding.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: A new front in President Trump's battle with Congress is emerging. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced this afternoon on the Senate floor that the president will sign into law the border deal reached by Congress this week. But that's not all.</s>MITCH MCCONNELL: He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to support the national emergency declaration.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: That declaration could allow the president to build even more border wall without consent from Congress. Democrats won't let it happen without a fight. NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis joins us now.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Hey there, Sue.</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Hi.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: All right, so the national emergency declaration - what exactly is it? How does the president plan to use it?</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: The White House has been signaling for weeks that this is something that they would consider doing. So the news of it isn't necessarily a surprise. In fact, a lot of his supporters on Capitol Hill were encouraging him to do it no matter what. Presidents in general have pretty broad authority to declare national emergencies to marshal federal resources when needed. It happened - it has happened a lot. But the key here is generally when they do it, there is no dispute that the nation is in a state of emergency. Think President Bush after Hurricane Katrina. Doing this in a way that essentially is a play to redirect taxpayer dollars to build a border wall - it's a pretty provocative political act, and it might be an unconstitutional one.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: To the politics of this, I said Democrats are not going to let this happen without a fight. What can they do to try to block it?</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: They have a legislative option. Under the law that gives the president this authority, it also gives Congress the same legal authority to overturn a national emergency. Practically speaking, they'd need a veto-proof majority, and they're probably not going to get that with Republicans in control of the Senate. They also have legal options. They can challenge him in the court. You know, Congress has the constitutional authority, the power of the purse to declare how money is spent. If the - and they equally have been preparing for this. Democrats knew they could do it. In the State of the Union response - or one of them - California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that he would be one of the attorney generals (ph) who will file suit if the president did this. We should be looking for that next.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: To inject some history here - for eight years under President Obama, Republicans were complaining about executive overreach. They accused the president of trying to make an end run around Congress. They accused him of violating the Constitution. How are Republicans like Mitch McConnell, who's the one who announced this - how are they OK with this?</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: McConnell announcing his support is fascinating in part because we know from our own reporting that he has privately been very concerned about the president doing this. It may not also have unified support among Republicans up here. There is significant concern that setting a precedent where a president can invoke a national emergency when he loses a policy fight with Congress - it's a pretty dangerous precedent to set if it's not your guy in the White House or a woman in the White House, I should say. Speaker Pelosi spoke to that today.</s>NANCY PELOSI: Republicans should have some dismay about the door that they are opening, the threshold they are crossing.</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: This is the kind of presidential decision that could have the potential for any number of new precedents and unintended consequences if he's ultimately successful.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And Sue, not to lose sight of what we thought was going to be the big news tonight - the border security deal and whether the president would sign it - he waged the longest shutdown fight in history because he wanted this $5.7 billion to build a wall. In the end, he says he's going to sign this deal. What does it get him of what he wanted?</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: The bill will include nearly - or about 1.4 billion for border wall funding that will fund 55 miles of new barriers. It's quite possible he may use the emergency declaration to try to make up for what he didn't get. We're looking for details on that from the White House.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis, thank you very much.</s>SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: You're welcome.

President Trump's emergency declaration to build a border wall will face challenges from Congress, the courts and groups that will lose money for projects that they've been promised.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to begin our program today with President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Congress has authorized nearly $1.4 billion for border security, but under the president's emergency declaration, he is claiming a total of $8 billion for the project. The president is already facing fierce opposition on several fronts. To look at how this might play out, we've called NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre, who's with us now.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Greg, who are the leading critics so far? And what actions are they planning?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So the opposition exists, I think, really in three main fronts - Congress - mostly Democrats, but some Republicans as well. We're expecting to see multiple legal challenges in the courts. And then there's those who've been promised money or promised something that may now be taken away.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And can we separate those things and look at them each one at a time? So, first of all, what is Congress likely to do?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So they could object with a resolution. This is probably pretty likely in the House, controlled by the Democrats, uncertain in the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans. So even if they get it together, they probably don't have enough votes to override a veto by Trump.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what's the basis of Congress's objection?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: It's a sort of broad, fundamental principle of separation of powers and Congress having the power of the purse. Remember, we just had this five-week shutdown. Congress then got together, hammered out a deal, and the president actually signed that deal yesterday. But then, literally in the same breath, he said, I want billions of more dollars.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. So what are we hearing on the legal front?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Already California's governor, Gavin Newsom, says his state will sue. The ACLU and others are saying the same thing. Legal scholars are saying this is going to be complicated. Presidents do have broad authority. They've claimed national emergencies about 60 times since the 1976 law. The courts are usually deferential to presidents when it comes to national security. And there are even some relevant laws here. I spoke about this with Scott Anderson, a legal scholar at the Brookings Institution, who's been writing about this issue.</s>SCOTT ANDERSON: One authority allows the president to build roads and fences along the U.S.-Mexico border to assist with drug interdiction efforts. The question then becomes, well, does a wall across the whole U.S.-Mexico border qualify as a fence?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So the president's legal team will have ammunition. But Anderson and others think he is going to face pushback. And the president himself said that, saying he expects to be sued. He expects to even lose initially. But he says, in his own words, he hopes he can get a fair shake in the Supreme Court.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Where does the president want to get the money for the wall?</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Several pots. And the biggest one would be military construction. He wants to take about $3.6 billion away from that. Now, we don't know what projects those would be, but that means somebody is going to lose a project and money they've been promised. If it comes mostly out of the army, they're going to be upset. If it comes out of certain districts where congressmen have already boasted about this, they're going to be upset.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So you're going to see a lot of pushback and anger on the political level from people who lose money. And also, more broadly, there are some Republicans who support the president and support the wall, but they say they don't like this approach. Someday, there's going to be a Democratic president, and they say, what would stop that president from not getting money from Congress but then declaring an emergency to get money for health care or an environmental issue that they prefer?</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre.</s>MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Greg, thank you so much for joining us.</s>GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Thank you, Michel.

NPR's Audie Cornish talks with Margaux Ewen of Reporters Without Borders about what the arrest of Philippines journalist Maria Ressa says about the freedom of press around the world.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: This week, Filipino authorities arrested the head of a news website critical of the Philippines government - again. Maria Ressa posted bail to avoid detention. It's her sixth time doing so, and her case has alarmed advocates for press freedom worldwide. One of them is here with me in the studio - Margaux Ewen. She's with the organization Reporters Without Borders. They published a yearly index of press freedom around the world. Welcome to the studio.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: Thanks for having me.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So tell us about Maria Ressa and about her news site. It's called Rappler.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: That's correct. It is an independent Manila-based news website that she is the editor of, and they are regularly uncovering allegations of corruption regarding Duterte and his government. And they have been repeatedly targeted, as you mentioned.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Right. I mean, she's been arrested multiple times. What is she accused of doing this time?</s>MARGAUX EWEN: So she is accused on a spurious libel charge in this instance. The article that was in question here is about alleged ties between a Philippine businessman and the then-president of the country's Supreme Court. It's an old article, as I mentioned, and these charges are related to a law that wasn't even in effect when the article was written.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So she's been accused of cyber libel over a report that's a couple of years old.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: Exactly.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Help us understand the atmosphere for reporters right now in the Philippines under Duterte.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: Well, there's repeated surveillance and harassment of journalists, draconian legislation and intimidating threats. It used to be a very deadly country for journalists. And in 2017, four reporters were actually killed there. And so we do have concerns about the safety, the physical safety, of Maria Ressa. She's been herself subjected to threats online for her reporting. And given that she's frequently - so frequently arrested, we worry that physical safety is also in danger.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Are you seeing that in other countries? I know people talk about Iran or Thailand or Vietnam. Are we seeing the same kind of activity in governments against journalists?</s>MARGAUX EWEN: Absolutely. And Vietnam is a really good example. There's a very hard line cybercrime legislation that was just adopted to make an already very censored country even more censored. Currently, there's 27 citizen journalists and one professional journalist behind bars in that country. You mentioned Thailand - a very well-known Vietnamese blogger actually disappeared one day after he visited the U.N. local office for High Commissioner for Refugees seeking refugee status. He contributed to many news outlets, including Radio Free Asia. And it's our fear that he may have been abducted by Vietnamese authorities.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: So we're seeing this also extraterritorial reach of these regimes, which, of course, in this situation, we don't know what happened to him. But we do all know what happened to Jamal Khashoggi when he was murdered in his consulate in another country in Turkey.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So you're seeing countries use legislation to try and limit the actions of journalists and use it on grounds to make arrests. And in your Press Freedom Index, you've talked about this in the past, but it sounds like there - more and more, you're hearing language from heads of state against journalists.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: That's correct. We heard the president of the United States of America refer to journalists as enemies of the people. And we've seen a decline in the level of press freedom here in the United States. The U.S. ranks 45th out of 180 countries in our World Press Freedom Index, and that's just based on data, as I mentioned, from 2017. We haven't even published the report that will include data from 2018 whereas, you know, four journalists were murdered at the Capital Gazette shooting. So we're really seeing unprecedented levels of attacks on the press, not only in authoritarian states but also in countries that have been typically Democratic and pro-press freedom.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Margaux Ewen is with the organization Reporters Without Borders. Thank you for speaking with us.</s>MARGAUX EWEN: Thanks for having me.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Mayor Pete Saenz of Laredo, Texas, and chair of the Texas Border Coalition, about his thoughts on the proposed border security deal.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: For a reaction now, we're going to turn to Pete Saenz. He's the mayor of Laredo, Texas, and the chairman of the Texas Border Coalition, a group of officials from along the border. Saenz and his organization support the bipartisan funding agreement, but he's less certain about the president's plan to declare a national emergency as he signs the bill, which Saenz learned about as we were speaking.</s>PETE SAENZ: In our area, we don't see that national emergency. If he can - yeah, we just don't see it, frankly, here. So we just - I need to wait and see what time brings and what the law - the application of the law and see where it takes us.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: If you don't see an emergency, the kind of emergency the president talks about, what are your concerns about the kinds of actions he'd take?</s>PETE SAENZ: Well, again, I know he's been very insistent. And us here at the border have been very diligently trying to work with the people - the bipartisan folks that have been of some aid to us along these lines. Now he's - if he takes that position, that posture, then so be it. I mean, we'll deal with it as it unfolds. But for the time being, we would encourage more compromise.</s>PETE SAENZ: We would encourage less fencing, less physical barriers unless they do something that would suit the needs of the local communities and take the local input by way of coming up with some sort of resolution to those border needs.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: When you say there's no emergency, then does a move like this undermine all the work that's been done to come up with a compromise bill?</s>PETE SAENZ: I don't think so. I think Congress now sees that we're moving in the right direction by way of compromise. And that's the only way we can make things work, at least in our eyes. And again, we encourage that. Hopefully Congress can continue this format of compromise and avoid, you know, further - at least in our humble opinion unnecessary expenditures in areas that don't need this physical barrier.</s>PETE SAENZ: Now, other areas may need it if they're strategically required. And this is why I think we need to see what exactly this national emergency position that our president is taking, see what areas will be impacted directly by that. I hope our area is not.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What's your message to a president who insists that there is an emergency on the border, that it is a crisis of crime and danger, when you, the mayor there, don't feel that way?</s>PETE SAENZ: Well, again, our position has been just look at the data, primarily South Texas or even from El Paso to Brownsville. The Texas-Mexico border on the Texas side is very safe and safer than most cities our size or even smaller. So the data is conclusive, and it's definitive as far as how safe we are. So maybe in his way of measuring, his degree of emergency is something a lot less. Well, that's obviously - that's his position.</s>PETE SAENZ: Now, as far as crises and emergencies, you know, obviously when Border Patrol people confront bad people coming - because we do have bad people not to the extent or degree that Washington describes it. But obviously, that could be a personal crisis when they encounter these folks. But to increase it or raise it to a national crisis, I mean, we here in the border don't see that. And I say that with respect to our president.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Peter Saenz is mayor of Laredo, Texas, and chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. Thank you for speaking with us.</s>PETE SAENZ: Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Severe cold paralyzes a portion of the U.S. Facebook and Google are scrutinized over apps that collected data from teenagers. And, it's the final day of trade talks between the U.S. and China.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: How cold has it been in the Midwest?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We already know it is so cold that mail service was suspended in many places. And now we can add this. In Minneapolis, it is so cold, UPS driver Brendan Pena (ph) was told the decision to deliver packages is just up to him.</s>BRENDAN PENA: Boss has basically told us, at any point you feel like you don't want to work or it's too cold you can't feel your fingers, you can't feel your nose, your face, come back to the building.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good rule of thumb.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Or of nose, anyway.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: In nearby St. Paul, Minn., firefighters were told to work in 10-minute rotations. They are fighting a fire, with all the heat that it produces, and it was still so cold that 10 minutes was the maximum they could be outside. Even in places where it was a bit less cold, National Weather Service meteorologist Trent Frey has this warning.</s>TRENT FREY: Frostbite becomes a major concern for any exposed skin on the matter of about 15 minutes or so. You know, any prolonged exposure can be deadly in this case.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should say at least eight people have died in connection with this cold weather. It is a good day to check on people who are home alone.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Which is why I called my mom in Indiana, where temperatures were 6 below zero this morning, which would seem warm compared with La Crosse, Wis., where it is 30 below today. And that is where we find Wisconsin Public Radio's Hope Kirwan. Hope, good morning.</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: I guess this is the moment when you could say, oh, it's Wisconsin, we're used to cold weather. Are you saying that?</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: No, I don't think people are saying that here in the state. Actually, Governor Tony Evers issued a state of emergency - declared a state of emergency earlier this week because of the cold temperatures. You know, we saw some wind chills get down to -55 degrees; that's 55 below zero. And so, you know, that's obviously a huge risk to people's health. And, you know, a lot of things were canceled yesterday and into today.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You know, I noticed that here, where the temperatures were above zero but in the teens, it actually feels kind of nice if there's no wind blowing. But the second there's the slightest puff of wind, you want to get out of there. Is that what it's like there, only worse?</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: Yeah. I mean, it's definitely that classic you feel just kind of your face freezing - any exposed skin that's, you know, exposed to the cold definitely constricts. And, you know, you immediately feel it as soon as you step outside.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: I would imagine that this is immediately a perilous situation if somebody's heat goes off. How are authorities making sure the heat stays on in Wisconsin?</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: Well, we did see some outages - some power outages on Wednesday morning just due to power lines breaking because of the heat. But, you know, really, people are just encouraging people to keep their thermostats at a comfortable level and to just constantly check on pipes - water pipes and faucets, as well. That can be another, you know, just kind of infrastructure-related problem. And so people are just really, you know, encouraging people who are low-income to keep their thermostat up and worry about paying the utility bill later.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: In my hometown, I was told the schools are closed, of course, but the school buildings have remained open. People can go there if the heat goes off. Are people doing things like that where you are?</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: Yeah, a lot of places have opened as emergency warming shelters. A police department in the town where I'm at actually opened, and it's open to anyone who needs to have a warm place.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Hope, I hope you are somewhere warm, at this moment, anyway.</s>HOPE KIRWAN, BYLINE: I am.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Hope Kirwan of Wisconsin Public Radio.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Is Facebook really paying a price for a string of data privacy scandals?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The social media giant faces yet another one. Both Facebook and Google, we should note, were exposed for getting around efforts to limit their harvesting of data. The companies offered cash and other gift incentives to users who would then allow apps on their phones that monitor almost everything that they do on their phones. Facebook was targeting users as young as 13 with this.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It is the latest in a string of revelations about privacy issues the company has faced, but they're still making money. Facebook announced record profits in its fourth quarter yesterday.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Jasmine Garsd has been covering this story from New York. Jasmine, good morning.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: First, what does this mean - an app on your phone that monitors almost everything?</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Yeah, so both - in both these cases, these were apps which users gave permission for their data to be collected. And the point is for these companies to understand users better. Now, in the case of Facebook, it was particularly invasive. I mean, participants were giving permission to have pretty much everything monitored - social media messages, Internet activity, what other apps you have on your phone.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Although somebody might say, well, people opted in to do this and got some kind of compensation for it. Why is that a big deal?</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Well, absolutely. I mean, in the case of Facebook, they were targeting a very young audience, some as young as 13. And there's the argument that, yeah, they knew what they were getting into. I mean, but really, who is reading the fine print? That's what tech activists would say. It's probably not a 13-year-old.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: And then there's the fact that Facebook keeps breaking Apple's terms and conditions with this kind of behavior.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, let's remember here, of course, Apple, huge maker of iPhones. They like to promote the iPhone as a refuge, a relatively private place. And they'd been trying to keep Facebook from doing this sort of thing. What's Apple have to say now?</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Well, you know, on Wednesday, Google took down its own app, and Apple banned Facebook's app. It also banned several of Facebook's internal apps - you know, the ones used by employees in-house. Facebook and Apple have reportedly had a very chilly relationship precisely because of this - because Apple is uncomfortable with Facebook's constant disregard of privacy issue. There's a history here. Here's Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly chastising Facebook.</s>TIM COOK: We could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer. But you are not our product.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Just a different business model.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And so what is - when you say there's a history here, how have the two companies argued back-and-forth over time?</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Well, essentially, Tim Cook has said, you know, we don't want people to be our product. And Facebook very much gets its profit off of advertising. That's where Facebook's money comes from. And so Facebook is constantly in this conundrum of how to respect people's privacy while still making a profit.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. So you just mentioned profit. Help me understand this. Facebook faces way more than a year - a couple years of horribly embarrassing headlines, congressional hearings, yet another scandal, and they just posted record profits.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: I think this is the big question of our moment. At what point do users say, enough is enough? I mean, the reality is whether or not people knew exactly what they were getting into with these apps, a lot of people, and a lot of young people, signed up to have a certain amount of their privacy explored by these companies and, in the case of Facebook, for just $20 a month. And I think it speaks to a younger generation that grew up with a very different concept of privacy than the rest of us. And they're going to have to grapple with this question of, when is it enough?</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Because as the profit notation demonstrates, Facebook does know how to make money off of the data that they are gathering on you.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Jasmine, thanks so much.</s>JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Jasmine Garsd.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Some other news now - how much pressure does China really face to end a trade war?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The U.S. and China are in trade talks this week. President Trump is demanding big changes. He's already imposed tariffs on many billions of dollars' worth of Chinese imports. He is threatening to raise those tariffs in these talks that are happening this week and if those talks fail to force big changes in Chinese economic policies. Economists have pointed out that it's really American consumers who pay the taxes on imports, but it's also true China's economy is slowing down.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Rob Schmitz joins us now from Shanghai. Hey there, Rob.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. So these talks are taking place in Washington, right? There's a Chinese delegation here, where I am. And the head of that delegation meets President Trump himself. What's on their agenda?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: So the head of the delegation is Liu He. And he's looking for a couple of things for China today. He's going to gauge President Trump on what China needs to do to make Trump comfortable about making a trade deal. He's also looking for how serious President Trump is on making that deal.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: I spoke with China expert Bill Bishop about this, and he pointed out that from Liu's perspective, the Chinese delegation thought they had a deal in 2017 after meeting with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. And last year, they thought they had a deal with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. But...</s>BILL BISHOP: In both cases, President Trump said, it's not enough, and blew up the deal. And so I think they're very nervous that, unless they can get in the room and get the president to say, we're done, that they're going to be basically embarrassed yet again.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: This is something that the president's allies in Congress have had the same complaint about - that it's hard to know what he really wants, hard to get him on the record and keep him there.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Yeah, Steve. And what Bill means by getting him in the room here is that he thinks one of Liu's goals today will be to convince President Trump to meet with Xi Jinping to make a deal. And if you look at the president's calendar, he does have an outstanding meeting planned with Kim Jong Un somewhere in Asia in the near future, so perhaps the thinking here is to have President Trump swing by Beijing at that time to put an end to this trade war once and for all.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The hope of imposing these tariffs is that China would feel pain and feel more and more pressure over time to make a deal. Is it working out that way?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: China's economy is hurting. Just last night, in fact, more than 400 Chinese companies posted profit-loss warnings for 2018. And the impact from the trade war has only started. So the Chinese are likely prepared to make some concessions on items, like IP protection and reducing the trade deficit.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: What's probably not going to happen that the U.S. is looking for is China making structural changes to its economy and reducing the power of its state-owned enterprises that are blamed for creating this unfair playing field for U.S. businesses. China's Communist Party exerts economic and political control through these companies. And Xi Jinping is unlikely to cede that to the Trump administration.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, OK. So structural changes - no. What about changes to the use of trade secrets or the stealing of trade secrets or the handing over of trade information? Is China willing to change that?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: I think that's definitely going to be a part of what the Chinese will offer. This is something that the Chinese have already talked about when you look at their policy changes going forward - that they want to help IP protections inside of China, not only for U.S. businesses, but, you know, Chinese companies are now making stuff that's worth stealing, too, and so they want to protect their own business.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Rob, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Rob Schmitz.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, about the proposed border security compromise in Congress.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Will he or won't he? That's the question reverberating around Washington and through the country today. Will President Trump sign the budget deal that a bipartisan group of lawmakers has hammered out?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The president has said he is not happy with the spending bill. It includes only a fraction of the 5.7 billion he wanted for a border wall, a border wall that was the centerpiece of candidate Donald Trump's campaign promise to stop illegal immigration.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: As the executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian has spent much of his career advocating for more restrictive immigration policies. And he joins me now in the studio. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: Thank you.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So the president says, you know - not wild about the deal, not happy. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says pretty good deal. From where you sit, policy-wise, is it a good deal?</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: It's - I wouldn't even say it's a half-full glass, but it's got a few teaspoons in it, I think is the way I'd talk about it. So I expect the president probably will sign it. But the responsible thing to do would be to have an extension of the current funding for a week for people to be able to read what's in the bill because...</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So you want to talk more.</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: Yeah, because - I don't mean negotiate more. I mean actually see what they've come up with because it's going to be a thousand or more pages long, and it deals with other government agencies, as well. And it's just not responsible to, you know, get a thousand page piece of legislation and, 24 hours later, have to vote on it.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: In the meantime, there's, say, an executive action to bypass Congress and divert money into wall construction. There's a possibility of declaring a national emergency. There is executive authority to tap funds elsewhere. The White House has a lot of options, and they've alluded to the idea that they might be willing to use them. Do you think that is the right move?</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: I think they're likely to not necessarily declare a national emergency. I think that's something that would set a really problematic precedent for future presidents. I mean, if Kamala Harris were president, then what does she do with that authority? You see what I mean? But there are other authorities, short of declaring a national emergency, where the president can reallocate certain money to build some more fencing, for instance. I expect he probably will do some of that. It may be challenged in court. Who knows? But I think the most - the national emergency idea, I think, is probably a bridge too far because of the precedent it would set.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So basically, your objection to that is, when you're not the party in power, that becomes a lot less appealing.</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: That's why you have a lot of the protections, whether it's in legislative or executive branch - because you don't want to be on the receiving end of things like that because you're not always going to be in power.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: You've said you're not a wall or bust guy. But why do you think the wall's such important shorthand?</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: It's shorthand - it's not symbolic because we actually do need more fencing, more barriers on the border. But it was, I think, a way for the president to communicate to people during the campaign that he was serious about border enforcement, unlike other candidates before him.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Is it a problem now?</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: Yeah, I think he's - the problem is he kind of talked himself into a box by emphasizing the wall so much. And you know, the - I mean, while it's important, there are other measures that are more important - change if - plugging loopholes in asylum law; the E-Verify system, which makes it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs. Those kinds of things, in my opinion, are clearly higher priority than more fencing, as valuable as increased fencing in certain areas would be.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: At the same time, this administration has faced several legal setbacks when it has tried to draw restrictions around immigration or asylum. From where you sit, are they making progress for the agenda for people who want restrictive immigration policy?</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: I think the answer is yes. The difference is that when this administration started, both its supporters and opponents thought this would be a kind of shock and awe, you know, rolling over the opposition, when in fact, this is more a matter of trench warfare, metaphorically. And so success is going to be measured in inches and feet, not in overwhelming, you know, triumphs. And so, you know, they've been - you know, they've gained some inches and some feet here and there. So in my opinion, the direction is right, but the degree of success obviously has been pretty limited.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Mark Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Thank you for coming in.</s>MARK KRIKORIAN: Thank you.

The trade dispute between the U.S. and China has economic impacts on both countries — including America's agricultural communities. A Georgia farmer's livelihood is on the front lines of the dispute.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The ongoing trade dispute between the U.S. and China is clearly having an economic impact on both countries. But tariffs can also affect people on an individual level. Nowhere is that more apparent than in America's agricultural communities. Stacey Vanek Smith and Cardiff Garcia are the hosts of the podcast The Indicator from Planet Money, and they spoke with one farmer whose livelihood is now on the frontlines of a trade war.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: David Reed farms more than 2,000 acres of peanuts and cotton here in Pinehurst, Ga. And when his crop started coming in last year, he says, it was glorious.</s>DAVID REED: Oh, yeah. We had the best crop we ever had in 50 years.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And then, starting over the summer, a couple of things happened. First, a trade war broke out. The U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and China retaliated with import taxes of its own.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Among the U.S. goods that China started taxing were peanut butter and cotton, basically everything they grow in this part of Georgia. And then a couple of months later, this happened.</s>BROOKE BALDWIN: Hi, there. I'm Brooke Baldwin live here in Destin, Fla., where we are covering the official landfall of Hurricane Michael.</s>BROOKE BALDWIN: UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER #1: You can feel the ferocity. I'm sorry. I'm...</s>BROOKE BALDWIN: UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER #2: Getting sustained Category 4 hurricane winds coming in. This is epic.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: David lost about a third of his cotton crop and a couple of fields of peanuts, too.</s>DAVID REED: See the peanuts on the ground there? That's what was left.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Left after the storm. Peanuts grow underground like potatoes, and this field has peanuts all over the dirt. David picked a couple up, but they were rotten from all the water from the storm. The shell was kind of soft. It came apart in his hands.</s>DAVID REED: See; that was a good peanut when it came out. But it just somehow - we didn't get it picked till after the storm hit.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: The peanuts and cotton that did survive walked straight out of a storm and into a trade war. China's peanut butter and cotton orders from the U.S. collapsed overnight. And the price that David was getting for his peanuts and cotton both fell by about 30 percent.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: And what had been shaping up to be one of the best years in David's entire farming career turned into one of the worst years he'd ever seen.</s>DAVID REED: You know, we had planned to make a lot of money this year, but the Lord didn't see fit for it. But hopefully, we're going to break even.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Break even. And David says he is one of the lucky ones.</s>DAVID REED: There's some farmers just worried. You know, I've heard them talk and say, I don't know if I'm going to survive this or not. And you know, it's heartbreaking.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: And David says that the economic effects of the storm and the tariffs haven't just hit the farmers. They've hit the whole area.</s>DAVID REED: It's hurting the whole community and the equipment dealers and the guy down the street with the hardware store, and everybody suffers.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: In spite of everything, though, David actually supports the tariffs.</s>DAVID REED: I thought, well, that's not good for the farmer right now. But I think it's the right thing to do. You know? And I think President Trump done the right thing - in my opinion. I think he did a good thing.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: David thinks the macroeconomic issues between the U.S. and China are important enough that the sacrifice feels worth it to him.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Now, the government is providing millions of dollars in aid to cotton farmers and supplementing a lot of the peanut losses. It doesn't make up for everything. It doesn't make up for all the losses. But David says he is not going to switch to another crop; neither is anybody he knows. They're going to continue growing cotton and peanuts just like always.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Why is that?</s>DAVID REED: It's in their blood. You know, it's what they've always done.</s>STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Stacey Vanek Smith.</s>CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Cardiff Garcia, NPR News.

A Norwegian plane that made an emergency landing in Iran is stranded, due to unintended effects of U.S. sanctions. The plane needs new engine parts, but importing them is prohibited by the sanctions.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: We're going to stay with Iran because right now there is a plane stuck there that belongs to Norwegian Air, and it can't leave. It's been stuck there for months because of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Karen Duffin from our Planet Money podcast has the story of unintended consequences.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: Last December, Dario Sanguigni was on a Norwegian Air flight that was heading from Dubai to Oslo, and he had settled in.</s>DARIO SANGUIGNI: And then - I don't know how to describe it. The plane kind of jerked to the left. You know how if you're in a car and someone was to crash into the side of you - that was kind of the pull that I felt.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: A few minutes later, the captain came over the intercom and said we have an engine issue, but don't worry.</s>DARIO SANGUIGNI: We are just going to do a bit of an emergency landing in Iran (laughter). So everyone was like, what? We're going to Iran? Are we allowed to do that? Is that safe?</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: The plane made an emergency landing in Iran. And after a few hours, the captain told them, we've arranged for you to go to a hotel.</s>DARIO SANGUIGNI: But one catch - you don't have a visa for Iran, but the deal is you need to leave your passport at the airport.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: They handed off their passports and headed to a very nice hotel, and they waited. Norwegian Air then had to figure out two things - first, how to get its passengers out of Iran and, second, how to fix the plane and also get that out of Iran. Every day it's on the ground, they are losing money. But international sanctions will make it very hard for Norwegian to import the parts they need. The sanctions prohibit bringing technology into Iran that has more than 10 percent of American-made parts.</s>ERICH FERRARI: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot that goes into it.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: This is Erich Ferrari. He is the lawyer who helps companies navigate sanctions. Ferrari told us Norwegian Air has a few options. First, if the engine parts are sitting in some country other than the U.S. or Iran - let's say the parts are in Germany - Norwegian Air can get a one-time exemption to the sanctions to borrow and bring those parts into Iran just to fix the plane, which we're told is a long shot.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: Norwegian Air did decline to go into detail with us when we called them, but we are guessing that they have already looked around in other countries. So they may just have to straight up beg for an exemption from the office that handles sanctions in the Treasury Department. It's called the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. But Ferrari says as much as Norwegian might want to call OFAC and say come on, we're losing money here...</s>ERICH FERRARI: I mean, it's inherent in sanctioning that somebody is going to lose money.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: It's kind of the point.</s>ERICH FERRARI: Right.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: Instead, he recommends that Norwegian Air put their plea in terms of foreign policy or national security interests, something a little more like, dear OFAC, if you don't grant us this exemption, this plane will stay in Iran. And if that happens...</s>ERICH FERRARI: You don't have any control over what might happen to that plane if it will get confiscated or seized by the government.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: Which would mean that Iran would get a brand-new fancy plane, which the sanctions were created in part specifically to prevent. Obviously, the point of sanctions is not to disincentivize pilots from making safe emergency landings or to keep a $100 million airplane stuck on a tarmac. But that's the thing about these sanctions. They cast a very wide net. They don't just punish Iran. They're meant to cut off Iran from the rest of the world, which they do in part by penalizing anyone from anywhere who tries to do business with Iran.</s>KAREN DUFFIN, BYLINE: And that is how the United States got in the middle of Norwegian Air's business and Dario's vacation. Dario and his fellow passengers did get out. About a day later, a new plane flew into Shiraz just to get them. But as we sit here today, Norwegian Air's plane is still in Iran. For NPR News, I'm Karen Duffin.

The number of migrant families trying to cross the border has increased around Yuma, Ariz. On both sides, officials and advocates are straining to keep up as border security negotiations continue.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: All right, as Washington tries to finalize this deal over border security, we're going to get a closer look at what is needed on the border. In the Yuma, Ariz., sector, the number of migrant families crossing the border more than doubled last year. And, as NPR's Joel Rose reports, that is straining resources in the U.S. and in Mexico.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: We're flying high above the border fence separating Yuma County, Ariz., from Mexico. Barbie Moorhouse is at the controls of a Border Patrol helicopter.</s>BARBIE MOORHOUSE: The systems are all green, and the lights are all on. We're good to go.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Before she was a pilot, Moorhouse worked on the ground as a Border Patrol agent in the mid-2000s. Back then, Moorhouse says agents ran themselves ragged chasing migrants trying to cross illegally.</s>BARBIE MOORHOUSE: It was just, to me, like the wild, Wild West. It was just out of control. We did the best we could with what we had at the time.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Since then, the Border Patrol ranks have swelled. More miles of wall have been built, and the number of illegal border crossings has fallen to just a fraction of what it was a decade ago. But today, the face of those migrants has changed. Instead of farm workers and laborers trying to dodge agents, nearly 90 percent of the border crossers are families, many fleeing violence and poverty in Central America. They're trying to get caught to present themselves to agents and ask for asylum. And once again, the U.S. is not prepared.</s>ANTHONY PORVAZNIK: It is a crisis for us because this is a situation that the Border Patrol is not resourced or geared to deal with.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Anthony Porvaznik is the chief patrol agent in Yuma. He says the number of migrant families crossing in his sector is on pace to double again this year. Porvaznik says his agents are spending hours caring for the migrants in their custody, picking up hundreds of hamburgers at a time from McDonald's and waiting with them at the hospital if they need medical attention.</s>ANTHONY PORVAZNIK: We need additional manpower to deal with the population that we have to essentially babysit, and that takes Border Patrol agents away from a national security, border security mission to deal with a humanitarian mission.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: The White House has asked for $800 million in humanitarian aid for the border and for more agents. Congress is still trying to hammer out the details, including funding for more border wall though far less than what the president wanted. But none of that is likely to stop these migrant families. And it's not just the Border Patrol that is scrambling to adjust. About half a mile south of the border in a town called San Luis Rio Colorado, Martin Salgado runs a small migrant shelter.</s>MARTIN SALGADO: This house was made originally for men.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Salgado says it was primarily a weigh station for migrant men trying to get to the U.S. to work. But now Salgado says the majority of migrants are women and children seeking asylum.</s>MARTIN SALGADO: From a year ago, there's a lot of women - a lot, a lot of women and a lot of children. But in the past, you don't see this picture.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: I mean, it sounds like a schoolyard out there.</s>MARTIN SALGADO: Right.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Yeah.</s>MARTIN SALGADO: Right.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Before, this was a place to bunk for a night or two. But now few migrant families are sleeping here. That's because they're afraid to lose their place in line for a chance to apply for asylum at the port of entry. That line has grown longer in recent months as U.S. officials limit applications to just a few families a day. Migrant families return to the shelter just to eat, shower and wash their clothes.</s>ROSIA RAMIREZ PANULOZA: (Through interpreter) These are good people. My own village - I cannot imagine anyone being as helpful and giving.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Rosia Ramirez Panuloza (ph) left Guerrero in southern Mexico with her three children. She has two daughters - the youngest 10 months old and a son who's 11. Ramirez says gang members in their hometown tried to recruit him.</s>RAMIREZ: (Through interpreter) They would tell him that if he doesn't join them, they're going to hurt us, hurt his little sister and us.</s>JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Ramirez and her children spend their nights sleeping under a blue tarp fastened directly to the metal border wall along with hundreds of other migrant families. I asked the mayor of San Luis Rio Colorado if this is a crisis. He said no. Like the other people I met here, he says they'll make do. Joel Rose, NPR News, Yuma, Ariz.

A utility crew found a power cord in the sink hole, which then led police to investigate an exposed tunnel. The tunnel was pointing toward a bank, in what may have been a planned robbery.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep. It's common to discover a sinkhole in Florida. What was in this hole is not. Pembroke Pines utility crews responded to a hole in a road, and a worker discovered a power cord in that hole. The FBI determined the sinkhole had exposed a tunnel 2-to-3-feet-wide. The entrance began in some woods which had a winch, generator and digging tools. And the tunnel was pointing toward a nearby bank for an apparent robbery attempt.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a sweeping public lands bill that protects millions of acres of land and reauthorizes a major conservation program. Supporters say conservation is a unifier.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The Senate has overwhelmingly passed a massive public lands package. It designates more than a million acres as wilderness and reauthorizes major conservation programs. The House is expected to pass it as well. NPR's Nathan Rott reports on why lawmakers can agree on this when they are divided over so much else.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: Sharon Buccino has been working on public lands and environment issues for the Natural Resources Defense Council for a long time.</s>SHARON BUCCINO: And just at a time when here I am in Washington, D.C., kind of down and out 'cause nothing seems to be functioning, you have leaders on both sides of the aisle delivering what really is the largest and most sweeping lands package in the last quarter century.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: Needless to say, she thinks it's a welcome change. And there really is a lot in this bill, more than a hundred pieces of individual legislation all packaged together. Some of the pieces are broad, like sweeping new wilderness designations in Oregon, Utah, New Mexico and California; new protections for hundreds of miles of rivers or the creation of four new national monuments. Other parts are super granular but locally important, like a bill clarifying that four Alaskan miners - just four - should be exempt from a specific federal fee. Really, it gets that detailed.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: Stanley Senner, vice president for bird conservation at the Audubon Society, says that's partly why it got so much support. Parts of this legislation, he says...</s>STANLEY SENNER: Touch every member's district or state. And so there's something there that local people support all across the country regardless of your political stripe.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: The biggest example of this is the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that funds outdoor recreation and conservation with money brought in from offshore oil and gas drilling, and it expired last year. There are some who oppose the program. Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah, who voted against the larger bill, equates it to a federal land grab. Overall, though, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is hugely popular.</s>SCOTT BRENNAN: Here in Bozeman, Mont., where I live and work, fully 80 percent of our city parks have benefited from land and water conservation funding.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: Scott Brennan is the Wilderness Society's Montana state director. And he thinks that the broad support this legislation got in a very divided Congress speaks to the power of public lands. A recent poll by Colorado College found that the vast majority of voters in the Mountain West regardless of their party viewed themselves as outdoor recreation enthusiasts and conservationists.</s>SCOTT BRENNAN: No matter who you voted for in the last election, if you're a logger, you're a tree hugger, you're a hunter, you're a vegetarian, we all love public lands. And we agree on a lot.</s>NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: Hopefully, Brennan says, this bill can serve as a reminder of that. Nathan Rott, NPR News.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and loyal supporter of President Trump, about the border compromise the president is expected to sign.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump is upending Washington yet again today with word that he plans to, A, sign a compromise border security bill but also, B, declare a national emergency. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on the Senate floor this afternoon and told surprised lawmakers that that is the latest White House plan. That means another government shutdown averted but also means all kinds of political and legal questions come into play in regard to a national emergency.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let's bring in Matt Schlapp. He is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a longtime supporter of the president. Mr. Schlapp, welcome.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Great to be with you.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Great to have you with us. So what do you make of this strategy? Is this the right way to go?</s>MATT SCHLAPP: It's his only choice. He can't seem to achieve a bipartisan consensus with the Democrats running the House on the need to actually shut down illegal immigration at the southern border. So in order to do that - and we have, as everybody knows 'cause this is publicly available information - you have 60,000 people a month who are approaching that southern border.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: We are at - if you talk to any border security agent, you talk to career officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they'll tell you that it's a different kind of immigration. Some people say, well, the numbers actually aren't higher, but it's a different kind of immigration. It's a type of illegal immigration and asylum claims that really put stress on the entire process because the countries they come from...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: You're saying you agree that the situation at the border is a national emergency.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: I agree that the situation at the border is an emergency. It's a humanitarian crisis, and America needs to solve the problem.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And I - and I'm just trying to square that because when we interview members of Congress - Republicans and Democrats who represent the border - they say it's not an emergency.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Well, then why did two kids die?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Well, I don't know which two kids you're referring to. And we can talk...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Well, it was well-covered.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...About isolated...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: It was well-covered...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Incidents.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: ...On NPR that two kids in two separate...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Oh, you're talking about the two children...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Yep.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...From Guatemala...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Yep, yeah, that's right.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Who came across.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: They died, and the reason they...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: But building a wall...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: The reason they died is because...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Would not have averted that in any way...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: That's untrue. The reason...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...As tragic as it was.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: No, and that's just one of the ways in which it's an emergency. I mean, if you talk about - I remember during this whole process when kids were separated from their parents, and I remember listening to NPR talk about it in terms of humanitarian crisis.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let me - because people can cite statistics, cases to support any number of actions. And of course, again - a tragedy that those two children died at the border. But let me ask you about...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Terrible tragedy. I...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Of course, absolutely.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: I'd like to make sure no other kids die.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: As would everyone. I think that's - that goes without saying. As a political strategy, let me ask you this. What risk does setting a precedent like this run if the next time around it's a Democrat in the White House or somebody...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Well...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...You don't agree with...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Yeah, no, it's a great...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Being able to declare a national emergency when it's not something obvious like 9/11.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Well, I agree with you. I don't like the concept of the president using a pen and a phone - right? - which is what so many conservatives complained about Barack Obama - that he'd simply - when the Republicans in Congress wouldn't do what he wanted, he simply would sidestep them and go around them, and he did it on issue after issue. So it's a very fair question. I think most conservatives don't like the idea of a president declaring an emergency.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: The problem is at the southern border - is that the ultimate authority for making sure that we don't have chaos at the southern border relies with the executive, with whoever the people of the United States select to be their president. That President at the end of the day has certain decisions to make. That's why Ronald Reagan made certain decisions...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So you're saying you don't...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: ...About the border that's...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...This - he had no choice. You're not crazy about this precedent, but you...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Yeah.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: In your view, he had no choice.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: I'm not crazy about the precedent. I don't think he has to declare a national emergency to build the wall. But the problem - the wall is only a part of the solution - might not even be the most important part, but it's a - it is an important part of it. I don't think we need wall everywhere. I mean, we have 600 miles of wall now, and I think the president's proposal was 200 miles additional. So it's actually pretty modest when you look at what the problem is.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: But the bigger problem we have is we have - are we have passed laws that allow people to hover either around the border or be released into the mainland here in America under dubious legal standards. And we have to take care...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: You're referring to other reforms that people would like to see at the border. May I...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: No, I'm talking about the current law. I'm just saying current law creates the problem that we have, so there's a lot of things we have to do to house these illegal immigrants who need a place to stay according to our laws. Judges have intervened. It is a very complicated situation, and it would be a big mistake for America not to solve the problem.</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: May I ask you, though, in the seconds we have left because I think people really want to know this. Do you believe the president really sees this as the most urgent threat facing the nation, or is this at the end of the day about keeping a campaign promise?</s>MATT SCHLAPP: What? Which part, building a wall?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Yeah.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Which part?</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Building a wall.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Oh, no, I think...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The situation at the border.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: Everyone who has worked on the border - and I've spent time talking to these people. It's incorrect to say that people who represent the border don't want a wall. Talk to Paul Gosar from Arizona. He wants the wall. The - if you talk to these populations, not just to Democrat...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: But in a...</s>MATT SCHLAPP: ...Elected officials and mayors...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: In a yes or no, does the president truly see this as the most urgent threat?</s>MATT SCHLAPP: I think he sees it as a very serious threat, and he's building the wall...</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: OK.</s>MATT SCHLAPP: ...That would protect the country not just to keep a campaign promise. But by the way, when politicians keep their promises, it's actually a good thing (laughter).</s>MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union, thank you.

Rachel Martin talks to GOP Sen. Rob Portman Of Ohio about a bill he introduced, and other lawmakers' measures, that are aimed at preventing future government shutdowns.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: News at the U.S.-Mexico border underlines the stakes of border security. Authorities say they made the largest seizure in U.S. history of a shipment of fentanyl. That's an opioid blamed for many overdose deaths. But the drugs were found in a truck crossing at a legal port of entry. That's how most drugs are said to cross the border, meaning President Trump's proposed border wall would not have stopped this shipment from coming in. This case illustrates the conflict over border security. Republican and Democratic lawmakers say they can agree on measures like better technology at ports of entry. It is not clear they can satisfy the president's demand to pay for a wall that he once promised Mexico would pay for. The president is hinting that if Congress doesn't give him money for the wall, he will declare a state of emergency and take it. So what can lawmakers do? I asked Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you absolutely need President Trump to support a compromise, or can you secure a veto-proof majority that would make that unnecessary in case he changes his mind?</s>ROB PORTMAN: Well, as you know, what the White House is saying is that they're likely to invoke a national emergency power to be able to provide funding for their preferred approach to the border security issues rather than going into a shutdown. So I think that's probably more likely now. And there are three issues that have come up. One is, would the courts enjoin such a invocation of presidential power? In other words, would there be a lawsuit and be an injunction? And therefore, the money wouldn't actually go to the border, but it'd be tied up in the courts. I think that's likely from what I know of the way - people who would have standing, including folks along the border, including Democrats in the House as an example.</s>ROB PORTMAN: Second, it does involve the spending coming from somewhere else. So one of the likely avenues would be military construction - you know, projects that Congress has already approved that would have to be delayed or ended because there would need to be funding taken from them. But then there's just the issue of congressional power versus presidential power. Isn't this really a role for Congress? So we'd have to go through all those things. I don't know how that comes out. But Rachel, frankly, I don't see a shutdown as likely.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And what I hear you saying is you'd like to avoid a national emergency declaration by the president.</s>ROB PORTMAN: Yeah. I think far preferable - let's roll up our sleeves and do the work, close these gaps between us on the border, both literally and figuratively. We're not that far apart. It's just a question of what kind of structures and where they go.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Meanwhile, some federal workers who had been furloughed are still waiting for their back pay, pay they were denied during the shutdown. Many contractors aren't going to be paid at all. You have now introduced a bill to prevent this from happening again. You think that's really necessary.</s>ROB PORTMAN: Yeah. I think shutdowns are stupid. I've felt so for a long time. As you know, this is the fifth time they've introduced my legislation, which is called End Government Shutdowns, a very creative title. It basically says that when you get to the end of an appropriations bill, you don't shut down the government, but instead, you continue the funding from the previous year. Now, some of them said, well, that's bad because you want Congress to appropriate. I agree with that totally. That's why in our legislation, after four months, there is a 1 percent across-the-board cut in all spending. And that will encourage Congress to do its work.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you think after five times of proposing the same legislation, this moment is different?</s>ROB PORTMAN: I do. I mean, look; I've talked to Republicans and Democrats alike. It's really not helping anybody. And for those who are more interested in reducing the size and scope of government, that's not what happens in these. Actually, the taxpayer, in my experience, having lived through about six of these shutdowns now, end up paying more because, again, you come back after the fact and pay people, often paying people for services that were not provided. So it's a hardship for federal employees and their families. It's a hardship for a lot of small businesses that can't get paid for the government work. And it's a hardship for a lot of taxpayers who aren't getting their services.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can I ask, though, Senator - you understand the raw politics, though, of this. And what do you say to Republicans, even some Democrats, who argue that passing a bill like the one you're suggesting removes important leverage in spending negotiations?</s>ROB PORTMAN: Again, I've been through a few of them, and I've seen what happens, and a lot of people go into them thinking it's going to provide great leverage. I don't think it does. I don't think Chuck Schumer believes that when he got accused of having the Schumer shutdown a year or so ago, which was when he blocked a continuing resolution on behalf of a specific issue. I don't think that many Republicans see it as leverage now, having just gone through this last 35 days and seen the response and reaction from the American people and from the other parties.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, speaking to us yesterday. I want to bring in NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Scott, Senator Portman wants to pass this bill to make sure government shutdowns don't happen again. But that's exactly what's going to happen if Congress doesn't come up with a deal. Has the president already made up his mind that he's going to declare a national emergency, or is this just more posturing?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: That's a very good question, Rachel. You know, he - the president gave an interview to The New York Times yesterday in which he seemed to suggest that he is leaning towards declaring a national emergency. But you have to take that with a big grain of salt because of course, the - he's been hinting at that ever since this standoff began, and he hasn't pulled the trigger yet. The White House, like Senator Portman, knows that a national emergency would invite an immediate legal challenge. There would be opposition from some members of the president's own party, both on sort of constitutional and economic grounds. So it's not entirely clear the president's going to do that.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: And even talking about using a national emergency sort of undercuts the bargaining position of the Republicans on that conference committee. So it's an interesting stance for the president to be taking. You know, Senator Portman used to be a White House budget director, so he knows about the cost of shutdowns not only from a political point of view of a lawmaker, but the budget director is the guy who kind of has to manage a shutdown in the White House. And so he's certainly familiar with the cost on that end, as well.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Just briefly, is Portman right? Have Democrats and Republicans all along been closer than the rhetoric indicates?</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Sure. This is a - you know, this has been a political point for the White House that there was a deal in Congress before this shutdown ever began.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley. Thanks.</s>SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: You're welcome.

NPR's Audie Cornish talks with Jason Furman, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, about the national debt that's currently at $22 trillion.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The national debt surpassed $22 trillion this week - a new record - and this despite candidate Donald Trump's promise to reduce U.S. debt once he became president. There was a time when the soaring national debt caused panic in Washington. Now it's mostly crickets, at least from the officials who have control over the federal budget. So what's changed? We're going to ask Jason Furman. He was a top White House economist in the Obama administration. He's now at the Harvard Kennedy School.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Welcome to the program.</s>JASON FURMAN: Thanks for having me.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So you've written about the debt. And you hear that $22 trillion figure, and you argue that it's not so scary. How come?</s>JASON FURMAN: I've been paying attention to fiscal policy, debts and deficits, for decades now. And we're at a point where something I never thought would happen has happened. We have a really high level of debt. But one of the main reasons you worry about debt is that it drives up interest rates, and interest rates today are really low. I think that's telling us that something's changed about the economy. And we need to change the way we think about debt and deficits along with that change in the economy.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: To you, what has changed? What's different?</s>JASON FURMAN: What deficits are is a drain on savings. But right now, there's a lot of savings coming from all over the world. Businesses aren't investing as much as they used to because a lot more businesses are digital. And as a result, interest rates are a lot lower, and the problems that deficits cause for interest rates are much less serious than they were a couple decades ago.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: But as you're talking about, I mean, the economy is good. Unemployment is low. If there was ever a time when we should be shrinking the national deficit, shouldn't this be it? I mean, is this the time for some dramatic moves?</s>JASON FURMAN: Yeah. Look. I don't think there's a very big economic cost in deficit. That being said, to use money in a wasteful manner that doesn't help is a mistake, as well. It's much better to be reducing the deficit or preparing for the future than something like the tax cuts, which I didn't think were a particularly well-designed way to help the economy.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Right. The Trump administration argued it would generate enough economic growth to offset revenue lost over the next decade. The new tax law has been in effect for a little over a year now. Are we actually moving in that direction?</s>JASON FURMAN: No, not at all. We did get extra economic growth in 2018. Most economists think that was a temporary fiscal stimulus and that we're not going to continue to get more growth in the future. But what's notable is even with that extra growth, the deficit went up a lot. And it is in a place right now that we've never seen in peacetime. Absent a large recession, we haven't seen deficits like that. So we are in an unprecedented place.</s>JASON FURMAN: You know, what I advocate is that we at least, for now, have a principle of do no harm. You know, we don't need to panic. We don't need to go into a massive fiscal negotiation to dramatically cut the debt. But we shouldn't do the opposite either. We shouldn't be piling on more and more and making the situation even worse.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: If the national debt is an indicator of long-term economic health, then why wouldn't we be worried?</s>JASON FURMAN: I think the most important indicator of our economic health is our economy. You know, how much is our GDP growing? How many of our people are employed? Do people have health insurance? And so if part of why we had debt was because we were dealing effectively with those issues, it wouldn't concern me very much. I am concerned that we are adding to our debt in ways that isn't helping those other problems. But I think you want to keep your eyes on the goal of fiscal policy, which is really to solve our problems, not, you know, green eyeshades.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Jason Furman chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama. He now teaches economics at Harvard's Kennedy School.</s>AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Thank you for speaking with us.</s>JASON FURMAN: Thanks so much for having me.

Focusmate pairs you with another procrastinator for 50-minute "virtual co-working" sessions. While it may sound creepy, the Boston Globe reports some people swear by it.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Good morning, I'm Rachel Martin. And I will admit to you, sometimes I procrastinate. It can be especially hard if you're working from home and there's no one there to hold your feet to the fire, which is where this thing called Focusmate comes in. The program pairs you up with another procrastinator online for 50-minute virtual working sessions. According to The Boston Globe, you just introduce yourself, state your goals and then get to work on your respective stuff. Productive? Maybe. Creepy? Absolutely.

Rachel Martin talks to adventurer Colin O'Brady, who last month made history by becoming the first person to cross the continent of Antarctica unaided.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: After a final 32-hour push that took him through Christmas night, adventurer Colin O'Brady made history by becoming the first person to cross the continent of Antarctica unaided.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: COLIN O'BRADY: 2:25 p.m. local time Chilean on December 26, 2018 - I just made history. This was such a hard journey.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Indeed, it was. The Oregon native had spent 54 days dragging a sled across Antarctica's vastness, covering more than 930 miles, with no help from wind kites, no supply drops. He is now back home in the slightly warmer climate of Portland, Ore. And I had a chance to catch up with him.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What were the biggest threats in your mind setting out? And then, did those match the reality of what the threats actually were?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: We named our project The Impossible First, and the reason we named it that is it's sort of been talked about, as well as written about, as this project is impossible. And so for me, that was the biggest challenge was getting the food right, getting the nutrition right, getting my body in a place that could not only carry the weight but it meant that I had to - I couldn't take any days off. If I took a day off, I'd be eating food in my sled and using my supplies, and there was already such a limited amount. So it meant every single day, I had to get up and move no matter what the weather was doing. You know, 50, 60-mile-per-hour winds, I was out there, which meant, you know, windchill of minus 70, minus 80, minus 90 degrees, you know, whiteout conditions. I was moving all day.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: As I still try to wrap my head around this whole endeavor and what you accomplished, did you not have any low points? I mean, was there not a moment when you thought, I don't know if I can do this right now? I don't know if I can put one foot in front of the other.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: Oh, there was tons of low points. You know, early in the expedition, I even, you know, called up my wife and I said, you know, I think we named our project the right thing. And she's like, excuse me? I was like, I think it might be impossible...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: ...You know, just literally, you know, crying in my ski goggles, you know, with the tears freezing on my face from just how cold it was, how hard it was, how heavy my sled was. Early on, you know, dragging 375-pound sled, getting my body used to that, my mind used to the long days and the blank canvas of the endless white was extraordinarily challenging. And then even as far as the, you know, 48th or 49th day, I think there's a video clip.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: I'm kind of down in my mind right now. This is - even though I'm so close, day 48, this is the first time in the project I'm feeling like I just wish I could quit. I'm not doing good but trying to hold it together.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: At that point, there was a storm that had gone five or six days in a row. I hadn't seen anything but complete whiteout. And I can't even see one step in front of me. And I'm getting out of my tent to walk, you know, 12, 13 hours every single day, dragging my sled.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can you tell me about the final push? Because you had, like, a pace. You were setting out to do a certain number of hours every day. And near the end of it, you just decided that you were going to push way further than anyone even on your team expected you to. right?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: Yeah, absolutely. So I calculated and I thought, you know, I'm about 32 to 36 hours away from finishing this thing. And so it just kind of came over me just this deep knowledge. I was like, wait, I'm not going to stop until I get to the end. And so I went from Christmas morning at 6 a.m. straight through the night. Of course, it's endless sun, so the light just - the sun just stays overhead. But I ended up going 32 1/2 straight hours and nearly 80 miles in one single push to finish this project.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. So you were actually racing against one other man, a former British army captain named Lou Rudd. He ended up finishing two days behind you, but you waited for him, I understand, at the finish line. What was that reunion like? You two had just clearly done something so incredible.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: Yeah. You know, although it was, you know, a competition of sorts, and clearly we were both pushing as hard as we could to become the first to make this crossing, you know, there's a deep camaraderie between two people setting off on a journey like this. When we said goodbye to each other at the drop-off point, we gave each other a big hug and said, hey, hope to see you on the other side safe, sound, successful. Both of us are aware of the risks out there. So in the first week, he went ahead of me, you know, gained a bit of a lead in the first week. And although that was a little bit, you know, challenging mentally, I was also like, OK, stick to my own plan. I actually brought more food than he did. I had a heavier sled because I thought that in the back end I wanted to make sure that I had more energy and didn't run out. And that, you know, compromised a little bit of my speed on the front end.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But by day six, I had caught up to him. And it was the one time that we saw each other while we were out there. I walked past his tent and in this bizarre, you know, two men in the middle of nowhere in Antarctica just kind of gave this quick wave, walked past him. And I ended up staying in front of him for the rest of the time, all the way through the finish when I became first. And so as I finish this and have been alone for so long, I realized I didn't just want a plane to come pick me up and, you know, cheer my success of being first but rather, you know, give respect and compliment to someone who had completed this journey just a couple days slower than me.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And so it was an incredible reunion when we saw each other. You know, as he goes back to the U.K. and I go back to the U.S., we didn't know each other before this trip and, you know, it's not like we'll be talking every single day, but we certainly will always carry this bond of both having completed this. And it was an extraordinary job by him to make it across as well.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You had a bad accident about a decade ago. Can you talk a little bit about how that pushed you to want to do this journey?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: Yeah. So 11 years ago, I was in Thailand on a small beach, and, unfortunately, I got really badly burned in a fire. You know, a flaming rope wrapped around my legs, lit my body on fire completely to my neck, had to jump in the ocean to extinguish the flames, which saved my life but not before about 25 percent of my body was burned, predominantly my legs and feet. And the doctors in Thailand warned me that I would never walk again normally. And, you know, through the recovery process of that really guided by my mother, who came into my hospital room and sat with me for many months when I couldn't walk and said not only are you going to walk again, but dream about what you want to do with your life. And so I thought to myself, you know, one day, I want to race a triathlon. One day, I want to be mobile. One day, I want to, you know, do these things.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And so through this long road of recovery, not only did I race raised my first triathlon, but I actually ended up winning my first-ever race 18 months after this burn accident in the Chicago Triathlon. And that just kind of illuminated for me the power that we have that I believe that we have inside of all of us to achieve and accomplish amazing things, particularly when we shift that mindset towards a positive and not be victimized by a situation externally.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And certainly, if you look over the last 10, 11 years of my life and now being the first person to cross Antarctica solo, unsupported, unaided, it just goes to show that maybe one day someone will tell you you'll never walk again normally, but you never know if you keep pushing forward one step at a time what lies for you on the other end of that perseverance.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Your mom sounds awesome.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: She's amazing.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Colin O'Brady - we've been talking about his historic journey across Antarctica. Colin, thanks so much, and congratulations.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: O'BRADY: Thanks so much.

A crucial round of trade talks with China kicks off Wednesday. U.S. increases pressure on Venezuela's president to step down. And, what does Medicare for all mean?

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This morning, we're going to bring you everything you need to know about not one, Steve, not one but two different sets of high-stakes negotiations taking place in Washington today.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Republican and Democratic leaders are meeting to discuss border security. They need to agree on measures that can pass Congress and win the signature of the president in order to avoid another partial government shutdown in a couple weeks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell describes himself as flexible up to a point.</s>MITCH MCCONNELL: I'm for whatever works that prevents the level of dysfunction we've seen on full display here the last month and also doesn't bring about a view on the president's part that he needs to declare a national emergency.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: There's a little warning at the end there since the president has threatened to bypass Congress to have a border wall built by declaring an emergency. So that's one negotiation. The other is, if anything, a much bigger deal. Chinese negotiators are in Washington to discuss a way out of a trade war.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Oh, yeah, that. So NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson is with us this morning. Hi, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hi, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's start with the trade negotiations - U.S. top trade negotiators sitting down with their Chinese counterparts. What is supposed to happen today?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, the U.S. wants two things. The first thing is they want the trade deficit with China to come down. They want China, in other words, to buy more U.S. soybeans and other commodities. The second thing they want is harder to get. They want China to stop intellectual property theft, stop forcing U.S. companies to turn over their technology secrets. They want to stop China requiring U.S. companies to have a Chinese partner. In other words, they want China to change its business model. That's harder to do.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: The big question is will Donald Trump settle for the first thing? In other words, will he just settle for China buying more soybeans, or will he insist that China makes these structural changes? And then, if the Chinese do agree to do that, how do you verify that?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. And, of course, all this is happening against this backdrop of, you know, the Chinese CFO of Huawei was arrested and all this international - or intellectual property theft that you referred to. I mean, are they - is the U.S. delegation expecting some kind of win out of this, or is this an incremental development?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, nobody says that this will be easy. The big question about the Huawei indictments is will that become a bargaining chip in these trade talks? Or to put it another way, how does it not become a bargaining chip? And we don't know the answer to that yet.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's pivot and think about the negotiations on Capitol Hill to keep the government open. The team of 17 lawmakers has been tasked with finding a solution that they couldn't find for over a month. President Trump, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, gave this effort a less than 50/50 chance of succeeding. So, I mean, he's undercutting them before they even get going.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Right. Well, the big question is Democrats now have not ruled out spending some kind of money for border security - barriers, a smart wall. They don't want what they say is President Trump's medieval wall. And the president is no longer demanding 2,000 miles of sea-to-shining-sea concrete barrier. He wants a couple billion dollars a year for 200-plus miles of border wall. And the question is, can they come up with a compromise that fudges this difference where both sides can say they won?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you see that opening?</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: I am not sure. I think it's possible we're headed for another impasse, but I don't think we're headed for another shutdown.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: There's just not the appetite for that.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: So you heard Mitch McConnell say he doesn't want the president to declare an emergency. He doesn't - didn't say I'm worried the president will shut down the government again.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Mara Liasson. Thanks, Mara.</s>MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Thank you.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. Let's shift our focus over to Venezuela. There are more protests expected there today and more pressure on President Nicolas Maduro to step down.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah. These will be the first mass protests since the opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself as president or was declared by the legislature as president. They said they were following the constitution. Guaido does have the support of the United States and other countries. He - however, President Nicolas Maduro has ordered authorities in Venezuela, the Supreme Court, to put a travel ban on Guaido, and all of his bank accounts have been frozen.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Philip Reeves joins us from Caracas, where he's covering all of this political drama. Hey, Phil.</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Hi.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We've got a delay on the line. We should just note that. So the opposition led by Juan Guaido is calling for these protests. Is there an expectation they could get violent today?</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, there is, yeah. He's calling for people to walk out for two hours out of their homes and offices and shops and so on. And he's calling for it to be a nonviolent protest. You know, he successfully summoned hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets last week, so I expect this will be large. Some areas, we're expecting crowds; others may just be people on the streets banging pots and pans. We don't know how Maduro's security forces are going to react. According to the U.N. Human Rights Office, 40 people have been killed since this crisis really erupted nine days ago, most by Venezuela security services. And yeah, the worry is that there will be more bloodshed.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean, Maduro has told the Supreme Court to put this travel ban on the opposition leader, Juan Guaido. At the same time, Maduro says he's open to negotiating, but that doesn't seem like a negotiating kind of posture, to tell your opposition that, you know, your bank accounts are frozen and you can't go anywhere. What are the odds that these two men actually get in a room?</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, let's not forget that Maduro accuses Guaido of staging an attempted coup with U.S. collaboration. So a travel ban (laughter) is kind of rather a light response. Most countries, you would be in jail if you were also at the same time summoning huge crowds out in the street to support you. So I think Maduro is trying to feel his way here. He talks about negotiating, but, you know, I can't see how the opposition will do that with a man they don't recognize as president, unless it's a specific discussion about his departure.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Meanwhile...</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: And also there's no sign that Maduro's interested in a discussion about his departure, I should add. I mean, Maduro is standing firm when it comes to the issue of his departure.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Meanwhile, the U.S., the Trump administration, has cut off Maduro's revenues from oil and is exerting a lot of influence in Venezuela in hopes of pushing Maduro out of power. How is that being received? I mean, what do Venezuelans on the street, the protesters, make of the U.S. involvement?</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, I think the protesters appreciate it, but I think a lot of people are also very worried. It's very hard to see how we can avoid a very violent situation evolving here. Let's say, best-case scenario, that Maduro goes, but what happens then? Will the police and the national guard just show up for work the next day, saying that, you know, the Venezuelan socialist experiment's over, we work for someone else now?</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: There's a very high risk there'll be a vacuum for a while while these security forces figure out who's in charge and while the strongly pro-Maduro elements disappear. And, remember; this country's got a population that's very hungry and very poor, mightily abused and angry. I don't see how you could avoid a situation where, in those circumstances, there will be mass looting. And that's in the opposition's best-case scenario.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thanks so much...</s>PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: It could get much worse than that.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. Thanks so much, Phil. NPR's Phil Reeves in Caracas for us.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. Back in this country, Democratic presidential hopefuls are already staking out their positions on critical issues, including health care.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Democratic Senator Kamala Harris spoke in a CNN town hall meeting earlier this week and supported Medicare for all.</s>KAMALA HARRIS: It is inhumane to make people go through a system where they cannot literally receive the benefit of what medical science can offer.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah, in the town hall, she supported not only government insurance for everybody but also eliminating the private insurance industry. Who needs it, she effectively said. Afterward, her campaign walked that back, saying that she would be open to more modest reforms, which suggests just how politically tricky health care remains.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. We have got NPR health policy correspondent Alison Kodjak with us this morning. Hey, Alison.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel. How are you?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm well. This is a big question to start off our day here. But what does Medicare for all mean exactly?</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Well, it depends on who you talk to. But the plan that Senator Harris says she supports is the one that was proposed last year by Senator Bernie Sanders. And this would be a national health program that would, as she said, replace the private health insurance system. Here's how she described it.</s>KAMALA HARRIS: Well, listen; the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care, and you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: So her idea is that everyone gets a Medicare card just like the one that my mother has, and doctors have to sign an agreement each year to be part of the program.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is the same as when people say single payer.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Exactly. Exactly. The government is that payer.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How does she want to pay for this, or any Democratic candidate for that matter?</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Exactly. I mean, that's a big unknown. It's going to cost a lot of money. Harris said in that town hall, and when I asked her staff, they didn't respond. She didn't respond, and she didn't describe it. In his proposal, Senator Sanders didn't put in a pay for, but he outlined some options. He said that overall as a country, we spend $3.2 trillion a year on health care, and that includes Medicare, Medicaid and our private insurance system. And he says Medicare for all will cost a lot less.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Another analysis I've seen says the federal government will pay $32 trillion over 10 years to pay for Medicare for all. So the pay-for proposals mostly include maybe a tax increase on employers, similar to Social Security tax. One proposal is a 4 percent tax on everyone's income. There's basically tax increases on higher earners. It's a way of increasing taxes and replacing what we spend right now on health care premiums.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Since then, as Steve noted, though, Kamala Harris' campaign backed down a bit on this and said, wait a second, she also might be willing to consider other more moderate proposals instead of an altogether single-payer system, clearly indicating this is a political bugaboo for Democrats. It's not like they're all in line for this.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Yeah. No, it's really tricky. I mean, a lot of people co-sponsored that bill, including other presidential candidates, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren. But it's tricky because people like the idea of Medicare for all. But once you talk about the tax increases, it becomes much, much less popular.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Alison Kodjak for us this morning. Thanks, Alison. We appreciate it.</s>ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Thanks, Rachel.

Apple posted its first holiday quarter decline in revenue and profit in more than a decade. It warned the slowdown in its core iPhone business and weakness in China have spilled into this year.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Apple has reported that iPhone sales fell 15 percent in the last three months of 2018. And while this bad news was not entirely unexpected, it does mark a new low point for the tech company, whose iPhones, obviously, revolutionized the mobile phone industry. Joining me now to talk about what all this means for the company - NPR's Laura Sydell. Good morning, Laura.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What's going on with Apple? I mean, it was just last year that the company became the first American public company to hit a trillion-dollar valuation, right?</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: I know. It's amazing. But since the fall, the company has lost about a third of its value. And there are a few factors that are playing into what got us to this moment. There is China, which, along with Taiwan, analysts say, brings in close to 20 percent of Apple's business. And the Chinese economy's slowing, so customers there are buying fewer iPhones. In fact, many Chinese are turning to cheaper smartphones made by native companies like Huawei and iPhone knockoffs. In an earnings call, Apple CEO Tim Cook also pointed out that the dollar has been really strong. And that's raised the price for the phone outside of the U.S. And I will say it's not just China. People in the U.S. and other developed countries are also buying fewer new iPhones.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, why's that happening in the U.S.? I mean, the U.S. economy's doing pretty well, right? People still aren't buying iPhones then.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: No. In the earnings call yesterday, Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, blamed a couple of factors for that. One is that the phone carriers, like AT&T and Verizon and so forth, have actually stopped subsidizing new phones. And this has been happening slowly over the past few years. So now when you go and buy a phone, the price of the phone service has gone down but you actually have to pay for your own new phone. And a new iPhone can cost you, like, a thousand bucks, right?</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: So there are a lot of people who are just holding onto their phones longer. Cook also said the company's decision to replace iPhone batteries at a cheaper price means a lot of people have just decided to hang onto the phone they have.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. So I want to go back to something you said earlier. You mentioned the company Huawei. And there will be people in our audience who recognize that name because that's the name of the Chinese telecom that the U.S. Treasury has sanctioned - right? - for intellectual property violations. Is...</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Absolutely.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How does this connect to decreasing iPhone sales?</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: You know, it doesn't directly connect other than today, there are high-level Chinese officials coming to Washington for trade talks with the Trump administration. And since Apple would prefer we had better relationships with China...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: ...Of course, it might not bode well for the talks because the Chinese might be in a bad mood. I will say, though, the other thing is it isn't just Apple. There are other companies who are feeling the slowdown. Nvidia already - its quarterly outlook said their sales were slowing because of China. Also, Caterpillar, the industrial equipment maker, also ran into that. So there's a lot riding on China.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Meanwhile, on top of all the bad news for Apple about the iPhone sales, the company got bad publicity this week because a 14-year-old discovered a security breach. What can you tell us?</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Yes, he was playing a game. And he's - he was a 14-year-old in Arizona. And he discovered that when he called a friend using FaceTime, which is Apple's video conference call, he could eavesdrop on his friend before his friend actually picked up the call. His mother spent more than a week trying to bring the problem to Apple's attention before Apple finally acknowledged it and began working to fix it. Researchers say it should not have taken that long. And Apple has banked a lot on security and privacy, saying, we're the company for security and privacy.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: And then this happens.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It doesn't bode well for them.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: No, it doesn't look good.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Laura Sydell, thanks so much.</s>LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: You're welcome.

FEMA trailers recently began arriving in Panama City and surrounding communities for the thousands of people left homeless by Hurricane Michael, which hit the state in October.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Hurricane Michael destroyed thousands of homes and apartments on Florida's Panhandle, and rebuilding there will take years. In Panama City and surrounding communities, officials are struggling to find housing for families who, more than three months after this storm, are still homeless. NPR's Greg Allen has the story.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: In Panama City, the Macedonia Garden Apartments are now mostly vacant.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Debris litters the grounds. One building lost its walls and much of its second floor. Most other buildings have severe roof damage. There were about 100 families living here when the storm hit. Lorraine DePriest was staying in her brother's apartment. After the storm, she says everyone was told they had to leave.</s>LORRAINE DEPRIEST: People didn't leave right away because some people been here 30, 40 years - all their life. They really didn't want to leave, but they had to leave, you know.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Because there's no power, no water?</s>DEPREIEST: Nothing.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: DePriest was lucky. She found another place to live nearby. Her brother and his wife relocated to California, and she doesn't know when they'll be able to return. Their apartment and the entire complex, she says, is a mess.</s>DEPREIEST: When they had the power on, there was bugs coming out of the J building. And then they had to turn off the gas. And then there was a water leak. So, see, we're stuck.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Several other similar apartment communities were also devastated in the storm, including two public housing complexes. Greg Brudnicki is Panama City's mayor.</s>GREG BRUDNICKI: In our community here, 66 percent of our housing within the footprint of the city of Panama City is subsidized, OK. It's a huge percentage - 2 out of 3. And we had a lot of those places that were destroyed.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Many of those without a place to live have had to leave the area. Robert Carroll, a Bay County commissioner, says even before the storm there was a shortage of affordable housing in Panama City and surrounding communities. Some 70 percent of those who live in this small city are renters. To help them, Carroll says, FEMA has found several sites where it's bringing in hundreds of mobile homes.</s>ROBERT CARROLL: We're going to do whatever means we need to to keep the people here. We need to keep them going to the same schools, keep them in the same communities - anything that can keep them to have a sense of being at home because once they've displaced and they're moved - they've found new jobs, they won't come back.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: On this site in Panama City, crews are leveling the lot and bringing in trailers from FEMA. There's about a dozen trailers here now. A few dozen more are expected. They're going to be used mostly, they say, to house people who had been renting.</s>RON DESANTIS: I think they're going to be here - what? - 18 months, yeah.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently toured one of the FEMA mobile home sites. It's close to the Macedonia Garden Apartments and other damaged subsidized housing complexes. DeSantis says the trailers are temporary - a place to live while permanent housing is repaired and rebuilt.</s>RON DESANTIS: The good news is is that there will be some people who won't be here 18. They'll be here for a couple of months and move on. There'll be some who will need assistance after 18 months.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Officials believe that about a 1,000 trailers placed on several sites will provide a temporary solution to the housing shortage. What's uncertain is how long it will take to repair and rebuild public housing and private apartment complexes. A housing official says that's a process that typically takes one-and-a-half to two years. Panama City Mayor Greg Brudnicki acknowledges it's a tight timeline.</s>GREG BRUDNICKI: So we've got to get started yesterday on getting all this public housing and subsidized housing started and built and ready because I can't throw somebody out of a place if they don't have someplace to go.</s>GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Florida has already released $30 million to help build subsidized housing in communities affected by the hurricane. Brudnicki is now lobbying to have the area designated as a federal opportunity zone, which would spur rebuilding by giving developers generous tax breaks. Greg Allen, NPR News, Panama City, Fla.

The U.S. Treasury has announced new sanctions on Venezuela, targeting that country's oil sales — as part of a larger effort to support the opposition and push for the ouster of Nicolas Maduro.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Now here's the latest U.S. move against the government of Venezuela. The U.S. Treasury announced new sanctions targeting Venezuela's oil exports. U.S. refineries say they will no longer send cash to Venezuela in exchange for crude oil. Here's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.</s>STEVEN MNUCHIN: The United States is holding accountable those responsible for Venezuela's tragic decline.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And in a complicated scenario, the United States says it is happy to keep receiving Venezuelan oil but wants to avoid directly paying for it. How's that going to work? Well, NPR's Camila Domonoske is here to try to explain. Good morning.</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: Good morning.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So what is the basic theory of the U.S. approach of targeting Venezuela's oil at all?</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: So Venezuela's heavily reliant on its oil exports. And it's specifically heavily dependent on sales to the United States because the U.S. is one of the few remaining sources of cash for the Venezuelan government. And Venezuela's economy is in free fall. It's been collapsing for several years, and the country has massive shortages of food, medicine, electricity, pretty much everything.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Socialist government management hasn't gone really well. Things have gradually gotten worse, and then you have political chaos as protests have mounted against that government.</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: Right. So Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is increasingly unpopular. He declared victory in a re-election. The election was disputed. And now the opposition leader Juan Guaido has also declared himself president, so, like you said, political chaos. And the United States has a firm position on this. The U.S. has backed Guaido against Maduro. So these sanctions are designed to put as much pressure as possible on Maduro's government in order to attempt to get him out of office.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK, so how do the sanctions work?</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: So the sanctions say that U.S. refineries cannot send money in exchange for oil that they receive from PDVSA, the state-owned oil company. They can still take that oil in if Venezuela's willing to keep sending it, but the billions of dollars of payment that would be put out will go into blocked accounts in the U.S. instead of going to Venezuela.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, it'd be like - they'd be impounded. They'd be frozen assets that might be going to Venezuela at sometime later or maybe end up with the opposition government at some point.</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: Exactly. The Treasury Department says if there's a new government in Venezuela, that government will get access to these blocked accounts.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Why would the U.S. specifically say, Venezuela, it's fine for us to send the oil anyway?</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: So the reason to leave this channel open, the possibility of receiving this crude oil, the Trump administration wants to push Maduro out of office. But they don't necessarily want to totally disrupt the oil industry. For one thing, U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast have been buying this oil. And it would be really disruptive for them to not have any access to it at all. It could also affect world oil markets.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wait a minute. So the United States needs the oil that it doesn't want to pay for?</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: We have been taking that oil in and processing it. Whether we need it is a little bit of a point in dispute. Venezuela's oil production has already dropped significantly over the last several years. So refineries that used to be pretty dependent on this crude oil are less dependent on it now than they used to be. But that said, it is a significant factor in some refineries on the coast.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Any particular reason the Maduro government would allow the oil to continue being sent even though they would not be receiving payment anytime soon, if ever?</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: So like I said, Venezuela's really reliant on cash money from the U.S. And one reason is because there aren't a lot of people around the world who are buying Venezuelan oil and paying money for it. Russia and China are taking oil in, but they aren't paying for it either. They're accepting it as debt payment, so it is possible. We'll have to see if that money is still a motivating factor for Venezuela if it's temporarily frozen.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Camila, thanks for the update - really appreciate it.</s>CAMILA DOMONOSKE, BYLINE: Yeah, thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Camila Domonoske.

Environmentalists say the number of monarch butterflies wintering in Mexico's forests is up dramatically. That's good news after years of drastic decline, but researchers warn it might not last.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: We cover so much news about the U.S.-Mexico border crossing that it is fitting that we also cover this. Border crossings have increased - crossings by monarch butterflies. The butterflies migrate north and south across the Americas, and Mexico's conservation efforts are paying off. Millions of monarch butterflies have made it back to winter in the forests of central Mexico, with numbers up a stunning 144 percent. NPR's Carrie Kahn reports from Mexico City.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Environmentalists burst into applause as this year's better-than-hoped-for monarch butterfly census figures were announced to a packed conference room.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Andrew Rhodes, Mexico's commissioner for natural protected areas, says the migrating monarchs covered nearly 15 acres of pine and fir forests in the center of the country. Last year, that number was a little more than 6 acres.</s>ANDREW RHODES: (Speaking Spanish).</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: "The amount of territory that filled this year gives us much hope for the future of the species," says Rhodes.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Mexico calculates the number of acres the butterflies inhabit instead of counting individuals. Researchers say they haven't seen this many butterflies return to Mexico in more than a decade. In fact, the numbers in recent years have been falling so dramatically that just five years ago, a little more than an acre of forest was covered with the insects.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Officials say the stellar census numbers are due in part to a successful crackdown on illegal logging in the monarchs' protected forest reserves. But Chip Taylor, an ecology professor at the University of Kansas and director of Monarch Watch, a butterfly tagging program, says it's too soon to celebrate one year's good numbers.</s>CHIP TAYLOR: In effect, we dodged a bullet this year. We had very, very good conditions. We can't expect that to happen again - perhaps never.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: He said last spring was an unusually cool one in Texas. The temperature shift gave the butterflies a few more weeks to hatch their eggs, increasing the entire migratory population's numbers. However, Taylor says climate change and increasingly warmer temperatures makes a repeat successful season highly unlikely.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: And while he applauded efforts in the U.S. and Canada to plant more milkweed, the butterflies' food source, Taylor says it's nowhere enough to make up for the millions of acres of monarch habitat already lost to modern agriculture practices, roadside construction and pesticides.</s>CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Carrie Kahn, NPR News, Mexico City.

Steve Inskeep talks to Irish columnist and author Martina Devlin about the key issue in the ongoing Brexit negotiations: the border that separates Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Prime Minister Theresa May won this vote. Parliament crushed her Brexit plan but voted yesterday to support her trying again. She now heads off to Brussels to try to get better terms for leaving the European Union.</s>PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: It is now clear that there is a route that can secure a substantial and sustainable majority in this house for leaving the EU with a deal.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: One divisive issue is what to do along the border with Ireland. Martina Devlin is following that part of the story, along with the rest of it. She joins us this morning from Dublin, where she is an author and columnist. Welcome to the program.</s>MARTINA DELVIN: Thank you.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Would you just remind us what the worst-case scenario is. What would happen in Ireland if Britain leaves the EU with no deal at all?</s>MARTINA DELVIN: Well, the worst face - the worst-case scenario is a cliff-face Brexit, and that would mean a hard border on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Republic. And a hard border would be a gift to dissident republicans. In turn, that could reignite loyalist violence. So no deal compromises the Good Friday Agreement, which has delivered harmony on the island of Ireland for the past two decades, and it has been good for unionist and nationalist alike.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So by emphasizing the divide in this historically divided island, it would threaten the reignition of violence on the island there. That's what you're saying.</s>MARTINA DELVIN: That's right. And there were 30 years of violence, and they impacted on all sorts of ways on daily life and on people's ability to earn a living - led to emigration - all sorts. I mean, I grew up in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. And the - you know, the island was divided in the most arbitrary way. So you'll get, for example, a petrol station with the forecourt in the Republic of Ireland and the pumps in the north of Ireland. There are villages in the Republic that you can only access by driving into Northern Ireland and out again. And it was done in an arbitrary way without consultation. And there were signs miles all along the border. And bear in mind, the border runs for 300-odd miles. These signs say hard border, soft border, no border. And they're intended as a warning and not a plea.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK, so tell me here because the one question is, how does Britain figure out a way that this is a border but not a border between two different trading zones and yet still open? And the Brexit Minister - the government's Brexit Minister was on BBC, and the headline that came out of that in The Irish Times, by the way, is "Brexit Minister Unable To Say What Alternative To Irish Backstop Is." He was asked, what is your plan? And what came out was word salad. Do you feel confident that Theresa May has got this one?</s>MARTINA DELVIN: I don't feel at all confident. I think that Ireland didn't figure at all when Britain handed its delusions by taking back control. And the penny is now dropping very slowly. But because the DUP, which is a party of Northern unionists, is holding the balance of power in Britain. They're refusing to do anything which divides Northern Ireland from Britain. They want to maintain what they call the precious union. But, you know, there will have to be a boundary set up, and it will have to be policed and checked. It will be imposed, and it will have repercussions - the violence that I referenced earlier.</s>MARTINA DELVIN: The reason it will be imposed is because - to protect the single market. Otherwise, Britain could do a deal, say, for a cheaper South American beef, which doesn't adhere to the same standards about hormones in the meat. And this meat could then enter the EU through the border in Ireland. And that would be detrimental for Irish farmers but also for EU farmers. Sooner or later, there'll be checks. It's inevitable.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK, Martina Devlin, thanks very much for your insights - really appreciate it.</s>MARTINA DELVIN: Pleasure.</s>STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: She is an author and columnist in Dublin.

For a new podcast, member station WNYC asks people: What scares you? Former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is president of the University of California, shares a few of her fears.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The things that scare us sometimes reveal a lot about who we are. Member station WNYC recently asked people to list their biggest fears, and we've been sharing a few of them. Today we hear from Janet Napolitano. She served as secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama. She is now president of the University of California system. Here are some of her fears.</s>JANET NAPOLITANO: Being in the dentist's chair and listening to the drill. Did you ever see the movie "Marathon Man?" Yes? Remember the scene with the dentist? You know, is it safe? Is it safe? Ugh. Yeah. I think that's maybe the most chilling movie scene of any. (Laughter).</s>JANET NAPOLITANO: An incident of domestic terrorism. What I worry about is not so much that a 9/11-style attack could occur, but a plot where terrorists, for example, go into shopping malls. Maybe they're actually organized to do several cities all at once. And think about, you know, not only the possibility of death or injury to those who are out just shopping, but also then the damage to our economy and to our national psyche.</s>JANET NAPOLITANO: Snakes. And I'm talking a reptilian snake, not a human snake. I remember one time I was backpacking with some friends in New Mexico, and I was pitching my tent and I had pegged down the four corners. And I was laying out the mattress, and all of a sudden, I see this thing kind of squirming underneath the floor of the tent. And I had actually pitched it over a baby rattlesnake.</s>JANET NAPOLITANO: Having to eat broccoli. (Laughter). I can't stand broccoli. I've never been able to stand it. I'm probably offending every broccoli farmer in the United States today. But it's the one thing I think I share in common with George Bush. I'm just not in the broccoli fan club. You know, protocol and good manners require that you eat what's put in front of you so I'm pretty lucky that I like most foods.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That was former secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. It's an excerpt from the new podcast 10 Things That Scare Me. It comes from WNYC studios. You can hear the rest of Napolitano's fears, and other episodes, wherever you listen to podcasts.

Rachel Martin talks to Debra Gonzalez, founder of the nonprofit organization in Wisconsin, Feeding His Flock Street Ministry, about searching the streets to find homeless people in need of shelter.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It is brutally cold across much of the country. And now at least eight deaths have been linked to the record-breaking temperatures. It was around -27 degrees in Minneapolis - so cold that a train track actually cracked. In Detroit, at least two dozen water mains froze. In Chicago, temperatures dropped to around -23 degrees, making it colder than Alert, Canada, one of the northernmost inhabited places in the world. And in southern Wisconsin, windchills this morning expected to be in the -40s. That includes Milwaukee, where windchills are -42 degrees. Debra Gonzalez has been spending her nights this week driving through that city. She's the founder of Feeding His Flock Street Ministry. And she's looking for those in need of help.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Debra, good morning.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Good morning.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You've been going out every night this week. You were out last night, I understand, for a few hours. Did you see many people out in the elements?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: We actually did not, luckily. There's many of us groups out here picking up people. And I think a lot of them stayed in the warming shelters that we had seen Tuesday night. Some of our shelters were able to stay open during the day yesterday. So - and, actually, yesterday, I was out from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening, having been previously out Tuesday night until Wednesday morning - 12:30.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: So...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Yeah.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Luckily, the message is getting through to people that there are these places where they can come and get shelter and get warm. But earlier in the week, when people weren't taking this as seriously, perhaps, or didn't know where to go, I imagine the story was different. Can you tell us...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: It was.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Just about who you saw, some of the more dire circumstances?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Well, we came across a gentleman who was parking his car. And it was frozen solid on the inside. The frost was about two inches thick on the inside of his car.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: The car - the doors were hard to open. He had no power. He had no gas left because he had used it all trying to stay warm in there. So we called a tow truck and got him a tow truck over there and got him to a gas station, defrosted him and convinced him to go inside.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. I mean...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Yeah.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Did he have a cell phone? I mean, if you hadn't come...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: It was dead.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Upon him, what would have happened?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: He probably would've, unfortunately, froze to death on Wednesday night.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. So he was living in his car.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: He spends nights in his car or nights in his hotel because he's homeless, yes.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: When he has money, he goes to hotels. And when he doesn't, he sleeps in his car, no matter if it's 36 degrees below zero or not.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. Do people sometimes tell you no? Are they reticent to come with you for whatever reason?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: They do. I actually - he said no. But just prior to him, I had got a phone call from the Journal Sentinel here in Milwaukee. And they said there was a gentleman at such and such place. So I went, and I finally got him into the car. But he wanted to stop and get a bus pass. And as I turned around - I stopped at a stop sign. I turned around, and he was bailing out of the car. And I was like, where are you going? And he's like, oh, I got to get a bus pass. I got to get a bus pass. I'm like, no, honey. I'm driving you. You can stay in the warm car. I'll get you a bus pass.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So he just didn't...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: He got...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Believe that...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: He got out of the car.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...You were there to help?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Yeah. He got out of the car and started walking the other way. And, you know, we tracked him for a good 20 minutes. And finally, I called our friends over at the Milwaukee County outreach team and said, you know, he just will not come in. You guys really got to check on him tonight. I believe they called the police to have them go check on him because he would not come with us. You know, a lot of mental illness keeps them out because they can't be in a confined area.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yeah. Are you going back out tonight or today?</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Well...</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You got to sleep sometime, I imagine.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: (Laughter) I slept actually in till - from 8:30 last night until 4 o'clock this morning. I do need to check on a couple people this morning before I, actually, go to my real job. But yeah, the temperature right now is -22. So the shelters are going to stay open today until, like, noon. Some of them will stay open till 4. And then they will close again around 7 p.m. tonight - or tomorrow night.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. Well, hopefully, people are taking advantage of that. Debra Gonzalez...</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: Yes.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...Founder of Feeding His Flock Street Ministry in West Allis, Wis. Thanks so much for talking with us, Debra.</s>DEBRA GONZALEZ: You're welcome. Have a great day.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You too.

The Justice Department unsealed criminal charges against China's most important telecommunications company on Monday, potentially deepening the ongoing trade tensions between the U.S. and China.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: There's another development from the frontlines of the U.S.-China trade war. The Trump administration has filed criminal charges against Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei for stealing trade secrets from T-Mobile and then covering it up. The indictment alleges Huawei management offered its employees bonuses for stealing technology from other companies. The company's CFO Meng Wanzhou was detained in Canada and faces an extradition hearing this week. NPR's Rob Schmitz is following all this closely and joins us now.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Good morning, Rob.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So the Department of Justice unsealed two indictments related to Huawei yesterday, the first involving the CFO, Meng Wanzhou. Let's start there. What's the U.S. alleging?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: It alleges that Meng lied about a Huawei affiliate company, called Skycom, telling U.S. banks it was not part of Huawei when it actually was. And not only was it part of Huawei, but it was allegedly helping Huawei get around U.S. sanctions on Iran. What's new here is that this indictment alleges that Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, who's the father of Meng, misled FBI agents in 2007 about all of this.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. That's the first one. And the second one, this involves a robot. What can you tell us here?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: That's right. The second indictment stems from a civil suit that T-Mobile won four years ago against Huawei for stealing T-Mobile's technology. And that lawsuit resulted in Huawei paying T-Mobile millions of dollars in damages. But now the Department of Justice is filing criminal charges against Huawei for this, and the details laid out here are pretty fascinating. It involves this robot named Tappy that was created by T-Mobile to test phones. And at the time - this is seven years ago - Tappy was cutting-edge. No other cellphone maker had a robot like this. Huawei, at the time, was a much smaller company and its phones were not that great.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: So Huawei entered into this business agreement with T-Mobile that allowed its engineers to use Tappy at T-Mobile's factory. And according to what is at times a pretty comical email trail, Huawei engineers bungle their way through trying to figure out how Tappy works. They take illegal photos of Tappy. They email measurements of the robot back to managers in China. They ask so many questions about Tappy that T-Mobile tells them to stop or they'll be thrown out of the factory. And at one point, one Huawei engineer dismembers Tappy to steal its arm and bring it home in a bag.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. They were very intent on figuring out how - what made Tappy tick.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: That's right.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So do we know if this is just, like, an isolated incident with this particular robot? Or is it indicative of something bigger?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Well, that brings us to the most damning part of this indictment. It alleges that around the time Huawei was caught stealing T-Mobile's technology, Huawei headquarters in China launched a company-wide policy establishing a bonus program that rewarded employees who stole technology from competitors.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: So if that's true, then it's possible there are more Tappies out there.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How is China responding to this?</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Well, a Huawei spokeswoman, she said that she denied all the charges, said it reached out to the Department of Justice to talk about Meng Wanzhou but did not receive a reply. Beijing responded by saying the U.S. was violating the rights of Meng Wanzhou. We're going to find out how all of this plays out later this week when Chinese Vice Premier Liu He meets with the Trump administration to continue those trade talks. Huawei is too big of a Chinese company to not be part of these talks. And it's a good bet these new criminal charges against the company are going to come up.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. Rob Schmitz, joining us from Shanghai this morning to talk about all this.</s>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Rob, thanks. We appreciate it.</s>ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: Thank you.

The woman saw other runners stepping over something. It was a puppy that seemed lost. She picked it up and carried it all the way to the finish line. She has since adopted the dog.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep with a story of a hardcore dog rescue. A woman was running in a marathon in Thailand when she saw runners step over something - a puppy, which seemed lost. She picked it up and carried it all the remaining 19 miles of the marathon. There's video of this. She seems a little tired, but she triumphantly holds up the puppy in one palm while running. She has since adopted the dog and named it in honor of the marathon where they met.