Datasets:

GEM

/

xmediasum

like 4

NOEL KING, HOST: The U.N.'s International - the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, is out with a landmark and worrying new report. It calls for urgent action to get climate change under control and warns of dire consequences if we fail. Jim Skea is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group, and he's a professor at Imperial College London. He's with us now from South Korea where this report was released. Good morning, Mr. Skea. JIM SKEA: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: The timeline in this report is really sobering. Can you talk about what you found? JIM SKEA: Yeah. I mean, the - what we were asked to do by governments was to produce a report that answered two homework questions. One was, what would be the impacts of global warming of 1 1/2 degrees compared with global warming of 2 degrees? And then the second part of it was what you would need to do to get down emissions and what kind of changes to society, technology would be needed to achieve that kind of goal. And, you know, there's a very - two very strong messages out of it. One is that there are a big difference in terms of the impacts of climate change at 1.5 and 2 degrees, and the other one is that we really need quite radical changes to the amount of emissions we have globally. And basically, we can't wait to act. If we wait to act too long, the goal of 1.5 degrees would pass beyond reach. NOEL KING, HOST: May I ask how long is too long? JIM SKEA: Well, the pledges that countries made after the Paris Agreement three years ago stretched out to 2030. NOEL KING, HOST: OK. JIM SKEA: And we really need action in that time. And there's a very clear message that the pledges that countries may have made are not enough. If we just follow these pledges, we're on track to something like 3 degrees warming, not the 1.5 degrees that governments asked us to look at. NOEL KING, HOST: So we need more than what has been agreed upon, more than the nations that have set goals aimed at limiting warming of the planet have said. I mean, are you hopeful that that's going to happen? JIM SKEA: Well, that's really up to the governments. I mean, this report started with the governments. They invited the scientists to tell them about this because the Paris Agreement said, we're going to pursue efforts towards 1.5 degrees. And all that we can do as scientists is present them with the evidence and the facts. If that's what you want to do, this is what it implies. And the report does indeed have a very strong message. I mean, we - you know, given the evidence available, we couldn't pull our punches in the messages. It needs really, really radical changes in terms of emissions reduction if you're going to avoid all the climate change impacts that go with warming beyond 1.5 degrees. NOEL KING, HOST: Very briefly in the minute or so we have left, what is the difference? 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees don't sound like a very - it doesn't sound like there's a big difference between the two. Why shoot for 1.5 degrees? JIM SKEA: The reason that it matters is that we started in the preindustrial period in the middle of the 19th century, and that is where we started from. We've got to 1 degree today. We're looking at 1 1/2 degrees. We're - the temperatures are rising at about a fifth of a degree a decade. And very, very soon, we're going to pass through that 1.5 threshold. So we basically need to act now if we're going to have a hope of keeping to 1.5. NOEL KING, HOST: All right, Jim Skea of the IPCC, thank you. JIM SKEA: Thank you.

Noel King talks to Jim Skea, co-chair of the U.N.-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that called for urgent action to get climate change under control and warned of dire consequences.

Noel King spricht mit Jim Skea, dem Co-Vorsitzenden des UN-geführten Zwischenstaatlichen Ausschusses für Klimaänderungen, der dringende Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung des Klimawandels forderte und vor schlimmen Folgen warnte.

诺埃尔·金与吉姆·斯凯进行了会谈，后者是联合国领导的政府间气候变化专门委员会联合主席，而该委员会曾呼吁采取紧急行动以控制气候变化，并对可能出现的严重后果提出警告。

Mr. MARCUS GARVEY (Founder, UNIA-ACL): General citizens of Africa, I greet you in the name of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League of the World. TONY COX, host: That's the voice of Marcus Garvey, who was controversial during the Harlem Renaissance. Born in Jamaica, Garvey came to the U.S. in 1916 and started the Harlem branch of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. The group, which was often called the Garvey Movement, spread messages of black repatriation, economic empowerment and pan-Africanism around the world. TONY COX, host: Garvey's rhetoric often put him at odds with black American leaders. He also ran into legal trouble and was arrested for mail fraud and deported to Jamaica. Historian Robert Hill runs the Marcus Garvey and UNIA Papers Project at the University of California Los Angeles. It is the single largest public collection of Garvey's writings and papers. I visited him at UCLA, where he is also a professor of history. Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): What we're trying to do is not necessarily promote Garvey. Our responsibility as scholars is to say this is historically important. This is not the only place that you could find material related to Garvey, obviously. But what we do is in publishing these papers, we annotate them and then leave it up to people. TONY COX, host: Can you show us some of the papers? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): Sure. TONY COX, host: What are we looking at on this row? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): These are volumes. There is an appendix in volume one, a biographical appendix of individuals who played a very important role in Garvey's early career. TONY COX, host: Let me ask you about one of the associates, if I can use that term, of Garvey's who I found particularly intriguing, and that's Cox, the white supremacist. And also when he met with the imperial grand wizard. Are these people who are a part of the history of Marcus Garvey annotated in here also? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): Absolutely. Earnest Sevier Cox. TONY COX, host: Now this is a letter from Marcus Garvey to Cox, who was a white supremacist. He said your letter and pamphlet have been brought to my attention by my wife. I appreciate highly the effort you are making. I endorse and support your views and hope for closer cooperation between two societies. TONY COX, host: Now how could Marcus Garvey, who is talking about the improvement of the Negroes, say such things to a person who considered Negroes not even human? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): Marcus Garvey felt that Earnest Sevier Cox, as well as the White Citizen Council, as well as the Ku Klux Klan, that they were white nationalists and he was a black nationalist. And they stood for the purity of the white race and he stood for the purity of the black race. He felt that they represented the interest of white America. Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): So Garvey felt that they were simply a mirror image of the things that he held dear. TONY COX, host: How would you describe briefly, Dr. Hill, Marcus Garvey's relationships within the Harlem Renaissance? My reading suggests that he was an inside outsider, if there is such a thing? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): Garvey's movement is responsible for popularizing the concept of renaissance. Now before the novelists and the poets of the well known Negro Renaissance Movement would become known to history, Harlem was a flood with a whole series of weekly, monthly newspapers, magazines, journals. The journalism is really what provided the foundation of this cultural revival. Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): Most importantly of all, you had Marcus Garvey's Negro World. Many of the writers of the Harlem Renaissance, like Zora Neale Hurston, she publishes her first poems in the Negro World. DuBois's Crisis, which was the most and longest established was now challenged by Garvey's Negro World. TONY COX, host: Why is it, in your opinion, that Marcus Garvey as an icon of, a historical icon in black America and beyond, does not have the same resonance, the name Marcus Garvey, as a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X or even others that you might name? Why is that, given what he contributed? Why do we not hear and know more about him? Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): I think that, for example, the image of Marcus Garvey riding in that open-air automobile, limousine, with the military hat and the plumes, many people know that image though they don't necessarily know that that's Marcus Garvey. The colors - the red, black and green - those were the official colors of the flag of the UNIA. Professor ROBERT HILL (Director of UNIA Papers Project, University of California Los Angeles): So that today anyone who sees the red, black and green flag knows that that's black nationalism, that's pan-Africanism. Those are the colors of African liberation, so that Garvey's vision is stamped on the 20th century and still alive today. TONY COX, host: Historian Robert Hill runs the Marcus Garvey and UNIA Papers Project at the University of California Los Angeles. I visited him at UCLA, where he is also a professor of history.

The organization of Jamaican activist Marcus Garvey spread messages of black pride and economic independence around the world. Robert Hill, director of the Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers Project at the University of California - Los Angeles, talks about Garvey's work.

Die Organisation des jamaikanischen Aktivisten Marcus Garvey verbreitete weltweit Botschaften von schwarzem Stolz und wirtschaftlicher Unabhängigkeit. Robert Hill, Direktor des Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers Project an der University of California - Los Angeles, spricht über Garveys Arbeit.

牙买加活动家马库斯·加维的组织在全世界传播黑人自豪感和经济独立的信息。罗伯特希尔，主任马库斯加维和环球黑鬼改善协会论文项目在加州大学洛杉矶分校，谈论加维的工作。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: The president and the congressional leadership continue talks on the budget and still hope to avoid a government shutdown, but this struggle is just a preliminary for what promises to be a much bigger and even more controversial fight over next year's budget. NEAL CONAN, host: Almost everyone agrees it's past time to address the huge and mounting federal debt, but beyond that, consensus is hard to find. NEAL CONAN, host: We talked with policy experts this week, left, right and center. You may have also heard about the proposal from the House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan this week. NEAL CONAN, host: Today, it's your turn. What's a practical way to tame the debt? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the program, an update on the current budget battle and what happens if there is a government shutdown. But first, we could not ask for better guides to the practical problems of debt reduction. Republican former Senator Alan Simpson served as co-chair of President Obama's debt commission and joins us now from his home in Cody, Wyoming. And Senator Simpson, always nice to have you with us. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): It is. It is. How are you out there? NEAL CONAN, host: Very well, thanks. And... NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: I was fiddling with the phone system here. They were giving me the business. Now, to hell with the business. But anyway, here I am. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay. Also with us is Senate Budget Committee chairman and another member of the debt commission, Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Very good of you to be with us today. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Delighted. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Former Sen. SIMPSON: Not him. Not that guy. NEAL CONAN, host: That guy. NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: He's a good egg. I like him. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we're going to find out how well he's been cooked in just a moment. But let me ask you, Kent Conrad, we're having enough agreement at the moment - difficulty at the moment agreeing on billions. What happens, do you think, next year when we're talking trillions? Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): You know, in a strange way, it may be actually easier. Here we are having weeks and weeks of discussions on the brink of a government shutdown, fighting over whether it's another $5 billion of cuts in a budget that's $3.7 trillion. It really misses the point entirely. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): What Simpson - what Senator Simpson and I were part of was a commission to deal with the long-term debt threat to the country, and we came up with a plan to reduce that debt by $4 trillion with everything on the table, everything under consideration, every part of the budget under scrutiny - spending cuts, additional revenue by broadening the tax base, reforming the tax code, actually bringing tax rates down. And also beginning to reform the entitlement programs that represent 60 percent of federal spending. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): So it was a broad-base plan that really would put us on a sustainable course and get America back on track. NEAL CONAN, host: And Senator Simpson, one of the benefits of the plan or one of the positive aspects of it was that it required compromise from both parties. Yet we had Mr. Ryan, who we mentioned just a moment ago, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and every Republican member of the House who was the debt commission voted against it. This is a problem. NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Sure it is, but Kent Conrad's been in the trenches, and he brought out things in our year together that were startling. You can get into the defense budget. Good lord, there's enough fluff in there that's not about defending the country and all the hysteria. NEAL CONAN, host: You've got to make solvent the Social Security system for 75 years. We're not balancing the budget on the backs of poor, old seniors. I mean, I had more nasty letters from people my age who never put any more than I did into the system who were supposed to live originally three years, and now they're living 14, 15. NEAL CONAN, host: We take care of the people who can't work. We take care of the 20 percent of the lowest people in poverty. We take care of the senior seniors. And we do a terrible, hideous thing. We say that we raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050, while the life expectancy today is 78.1. I mean, wake up. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, here's an email question from Chris(ph) in Oklahoma: Could you please briefly explain who the U.S. federal government owes money to, and what are some of the major dangers associated with the amount of debt that we presently owe? NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Tell that to the numbers guy, there, old Conrad. He knows that one. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad? Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Well, our debt now is $14 trillion. That's the gross debt of the United States. If we hold a bond auction today to finance the debt for this year, half of those bonds will be purchased by foreign buyers. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Our biggest creditor are now the Chinese. Number two is Japan. So the United States has a circumstance in which our gross debt, that is the debt we owe to the public, as well as the debt that we owe to the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare; that gross debt, which will be by the end of this year $15 trillion, will be 100 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): The gross domestic product, of course, is all of the economic activity of the country, and most economists have told us that that's the danger zone. That's the point at which future economic growth is reduced. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): And so we can continue running up these massive deficits and piling on the debt. What it will mean is reduced economic opportunity for our people in the future, reduced job opportunity, reduced chances for people to get a college education, to buy a home, to have a car. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): That's why these numbers matter. It's not just numbers on a page, as Senator Simpson so well knows. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Former Sen. SIMPSON: And the real thing is when all that happens, who gets hurt the most? The little guy that everybody is continuing to talk about. That's the guy that gets hammered. The guys with the big bucks never get hurt in this process. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): I mean, this is unbelievable stuff. This - and when they come, they're going to say: You guys didn't have the guts to do anything. You had a bunch of people stand up and say, well, we got rid of all foreign aid and all waste, fraud and abuse and all earmarks and Nancy Pelosi's airplane and Air Force One and all congressional pensions. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): That's six percent of the hole we're in. You can't get there unless you touch Medicare, Medicare, Medicaid, defense. And at that point, I think they're going to hold up that beautiful piece of paper with the treasury note, bill, whatever, and say: We want some cash for this. And then watch out. Money guys panic when they start to lose money. NEAL CONAN, host: We want to get more listeners involved in the conversation today. They've been very patient while we've been listening to experts all week. And let's see if we can start now. We'll go to Roger(ph). Roger's with us from Newbern in North Carolina. ROGER (Caller): Hi, good afternoon. NEAL CONAN, host: Good afternoon. ROGER (Caller): My suggestion is that there be a means test with a sliding scale for some, if not all, of the entitlement programs. That's politically viable and that you are going to be taking care of those who need it the most and helping least, those who can afford to take care of themselves. NEAL CONAN, host: A means test. In other words, if you're making a lot of money in retirement programs other than Social Security, you might get less Social Security from the Social Security system? ROGER (Caller): Exactly, plus you make it a sliding scale for some of the medical programs. Those who have $100,000 a year in income aren't going to get helped a lot, and those who have $5,000 a year in income get helped a great deal. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad, is that something that Congress might back? Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Well, I can't speak for all of Congress, but I can speak for myself and say: Sign me up. I've actually voted for a plan to do that in Medicare, to have it means-tested so that those of us who are the most fortunate really don't need assistance from the government. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): But we concentrate our resources on people who really do need it. I think that's kind of the gist of what the caller is proposing, and I think it's a very worthy suggestion. NEAL CONAN, host: Alan Simpson? NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: I think that's - I'm all for that. Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, and I tried to do some of that when we were together in the Senate. We have a new word. Means testing sounds so nasty. We just use affluence testing. It's more appropriate. NEAL CONAN, host: And why did it fail, Senator Simpson? NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Well, you know, then here comes the AARP saying that it destroys the whole system of whatever. Erskine and I went to their hierarchy, and we said: Are there any patriots in here or just marketers? NEAL CONAN, host: The AARP is out there with 38 million members writing, and if you think the savagery has started with our commission now, you ain't seen nothing yet until they gear up the money and the ads and all the stuff. Kent and I have been through this. This is absurd. NEAL CONAN, host: And the American people understand one thing, two things. Here they are: If you spend more than you earn, you lose your butt. And if you spend a buck and borrow 40 cents of it, you've got to be stupid. And they know this government is stupid. NEAL CONAN, host: Roger, thanks very much for the call. When you hear Senator Simpson refer to Erskine, he's referring to Erskine Bowles, who used to work for President Clinton, was the other co-chairman of the debt commission. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Katie in Ann Arbor: At a time we're facing huge deficits, trying to recover from a massive recession, why have the Bush tax cuts been extended? Why aren't we taxing wealthy citizens at the same rate we tax less wealthy workers in this country? Even dollar of my income gets taxed. The same should be true for those wealthy citizens who can most afford to do their part. Whatever happened to everyone doing his or her part? NEAL CONAN, host: And Senator Simpson, extending the Bush tax cuts, indeed making them permanent, seems to be part of the Republican, well, doctrine. NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Some Republicans. There are plenty of us who never thought that was common sense. I thought it was absurd when it first started. How do you get a tax cut to help when you're in the midst of this global economy with this tremendous debt, with $4 billion a day being borrowed. I mean, this is absurd. NEAL CONAN, host: So I would have never voted for the original tax cuts back in the previous administration. I thought it was absurd then, and it's even more absurd now. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad, the president tried to end those at the end of the last year, and, well, Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and he couldn't do it. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Well, actually, at the end of last year, the president decided to allow all the tax cuts to be extended for two years. And the reason he did is the best economic advice that he got was that in the midst of an economic downturn, it's not time to raise taxes. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): And as you know, while a disproportionate share of those tax cuts went to the wealthiest among us, a large dollar amount of the value of those tax cuts went to the middle class. And the best economic advice the president got was: Do not be raising taxes on the middle class in the midst of an economic downturn. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): He did want to be able to end the tax cuts for those earning over $250,000, but he couldn't get agreement on the Republican side of the aisle to do that; and in the Senate, unless you have 60 votes, you can't advance a measure. And of course, Democrats didn't have 60 votes in the United States Senate at that point. NEAL CONAN, host: That's Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota. He heads the Senate Budget Committee. Also with us, Republican Senator Alan Simpson from Wyoming, co-chair of the president's debt commission. More of your ideas on how to tame the federal debt when we come back after a short break. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. NEAL CONAN, host: Congressman Paul Ryan stirred up debate over federal debt this week. His plan would cut about $5 trillion over 10 years. All week we've talked with policy experts - left, right and center - about how to tackle the massive government debt. NEAL CONAN, host: Today, it's your turn. What's a practical way to tame the debt? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Or drop us an email, talk@npr.org. You can also go to our website to join the conversation. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: Our guests are Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming and co-chair of the president's debt commission, and Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He served with Alan Simpson on the president's fiscal commission. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we can get another caller on. This is David(ph), David with us from Pensacola. DAVID (Caller): Hi, thanks for taking my call. NEAL CONAN, host: Sure. DAVID (Caller): One of my suggestions, among many, is get rid of these automatic increases that departments get for their budgets. I'm in the Navy, and it seems that every year around August that the naval hospital I work at, they say: Okay, we still have $2 million left that we have to spend or else we won't get the same money we had last year plus our increase. DAVID (Caller): So get rid of these automatic increases and make the departments justify any increases instead of automatic increases. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad, it's a well-known budgeting problem that if there's a surplus before the end of the fiscal year, people want to spend that for fear that if they don't, their next year's budget could be reduced by that amount. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): The fiscal commission proposed that we have savings of $1.7 trillion. And one of the ways we did it is to freeze spending in the short term, actually cut it in 2013 and then only allow it to rise at a rate below the level of inflation to bring about the kind of reform that was just proposed by the listener, really a very good idea, just kind of a common-sense idea. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): You don't just keep getting percentage increases on top of previous budgets when you're spending far more than you're taking in. As Senator Simpson so well stated it, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): The revenue of the United States, as a share of our national income, is the lowest it's been in 60 years. Spending as a share of our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. That's why we have record deficits and record debt, and if we don't get this under control, we are going to jeopardize the future economic strength of the country. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Virtually every economist of whatever philosophical stripe has told us that, told the commission that. And I do want to say that Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles provided really magnificent leadership to this commission. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): And they're patriots. They said: Look, yes these things are controversial. Yes, people get upset when we acknowledge that we're going to have to cut some spending, we're going to have to raise some revenue. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Neither one of them are particularly popular. But it's got to be done, and our country will be much better off if we get back on course, on track, and I think the American people are smart enough to know that what Senator Simpson was saying, and what Erskine Bowles was saying -who of course served as chief of staff to President Clinton - that they're telling the American people the truth. NEAL CONAN, host: David, thanks for the call. NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: It really - it comes down to those things - Senator Conrad has been involved in this back in his days as a state elected official in North Dakota. This is a simple thing for me. There should be no kudos come to me or Erskine. NEAL CONAN, host: We're doing this for 15 reasons. I didn't tell you, Kent, he's got one more grandchild. I have six, and he has nine. And if you don't think that this is a cause that you ought to direct - anyone listening should direct - to their grandchildren and children, then you've missed everything. NEAL CONAN, host: This is a selfishness. No one has been asked to sacrifice in this country since World War II except our military, God bless them, and we have never had a war that we didn't have a tax to support it, including the revolution. Today, we have two wars with a toe in the ocean to go for three and no tax to support them. This is absurd. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email we have from Gwynn(ph) in Mountain View, California: Please ask Senator Simpson why he insists on cutting Social Security when it's a separate fund from the budget and is, in fact, not in the red. In fact, it can continue to keep paying well into the 2020s in full and then at least 70 percent after that. NEAL CONAN, host: Does he suggest the money we've been paying in to Social Security should be funneled to other government departments and agencies? Why not raise the payroll ceiling and have the wealthy pay into it fairly? NEAL CONAN, host: In other words, I think by that last raise the payroll cap, after a certain amount of income, you're no longer required to pay into the Social Security system. But Senator Simpson? NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Yes, well, I know that these people get the same emails from every source, either the Gray Panthers or the Silver Herd Legislators or the AARP or the Committee to Save Everybody. NEAL CONAN, host: The payroll cap we raised under our proposal. It goes from $106,800, under our proposal, goes to $190,000. It would have gone to $170,000. We take it to $190,000. NEAL CONAN, host: The trust fund of Social Security, if you please can hear this, consists of a huge pile of IOUs. It was never stolen. It was - when it was set up, it was set up because the life expectancy was 63, and that's why they set the retirement at 65. NEAL CONAN, host: It was never a retirement system. It had nothing to do with retirement. It was an income supplement, to give a 43 percent replacement rate to the guys who suffered in the Depression. NEAL CONAN, host: And now the life expectancy, as I say, is 78. When the money was in there, the law provided that the government would go and say: You've got a ton of money in there. We're going to give you some super, super pieces of paper because we need that money. For what? To build highways, to make America great. And there is $2 trillion, two and a half trillion bucks in there of IOUs. NEAL CONAN, host: This year, in May, when there wasn't enough coming in to pay it out -and don't forget the law, it says you will pay only payable benefits -and in the year 2037, the payable benefits will be made and not the schedule ones you read in the little sheet you get from the Social Security information. And you'll get 22 percent less in that check. NEAL CONAN, host: And here we are saying - balancing the budget - that somebody stole it. Let me tell you. Here's what happens: It's an intergovernmental transfer. It's not held by the foreigners or the public people that Kent described earlier. It's simply a shifting. NEAL CONAN, host: And when it happens, one agency of the government, the Social Security trustees, say: Give us some money. There wasn't enough to do that. And all we have is IOUs. We want some cash. And the government then shovels the cash over, which increase the deficit. NEAL CONAN, host: Now, whether you like that or not out there in the world, that's the ways it is. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Let me just add, if I could, Neal, on that point, that in the commission, none of the savings from Social Security were used for the deficit reduction package. I think this has become a common misunderstanding. But Senator Simpson will back me up on this. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Former Sen. SIMPSON: You bet. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): We used all of the savings from Social Security to extend the solvency of Social Security, so in 27 years, there isn't a 22 percent, across-the-board cut. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): So we made changes to Social Security by extending the longevity, as Senator Simpson correctly describes, over many years, add one year. We've changed the inflation adjuster to be more accurate according to the best economic advice in the country. And we used those savings plus the additional revenue that Senator Simpson outlined from extending the wage cap, and took all those savings to strengthen Social Security, to secure its solvency for 75 instead of having it run out of money in 27 years. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Dan(ph), Dan with us from Merit Island, also in Florida. DAN (Caller): Yeah, thank you for taking my call. My question is this: One of the problems we have is our failing competitiveness in manufacturing and many other areas of industry. DAN (Caller): And I think that our government has many agencies, including NASA, Department of Energy and so on, that can work as partners and that should work more closely as partners with American industry to actually invest in research, development and productivity. But they won't be able to do that if their budgets are slashed. NEAL CONAN, host: So you're saying in order to reduce the debt, we should spend more money on research on development. DAN (Caller): Yes because we have to be successful in business and in industry, or we will never be able to pay our bills. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay. Is that going to help, Senator Simpson? NEAL CONAN, host: Former Sen. SIMPSON: Well, we realize the nature of a fragile economy and where we are right now, and we tried to address that in the commission report. We talked about cut and invest. We talked about research and development. NEAL CONAN, host: Who would be more interested in that as an educator like Erskine Bowles, and we did handle those things. We did address those things. We described that we must have these things. These things are the critical parts. But those things - I always say to people: What do you love? And they'll say education, research and development, maybe even homeland security, culture, art. But those things - I always say to people: What do you love? And they'll say - they'll give you something, just say, well, sir or madam, that will be squeezed out because this other stuff is on automatic pilot. Medicare, whatever you call it, is on automatic pilot. We tried to say what would chop away about 430 billion of it and not let it go up over 1 percent GDP a year, that will be tough to do. But those things - I always say to people: Medicaid, stuff - the tax expenditures, one trillion, 100 billion of tax expenditures which are just spending by any other name, we call them tax earmarks, suck it up every year with no oversight whatsoever. But those things - I always say to people: I mean, if the American people can't grasp what we did in a 67-page report with www.fiscalcommission.gov, then there's no hope. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad, we promised to let you go at half past the hour. You've been very kind to give us your time today. We know you're very busy, and we all wish you the best of luck avoiding a government shutdown. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): You're not going to let him leave me here, are you? NEAL CONAN, host: I'm afraid so, Senator. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Oh, God. He's a good one. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Look, I want to thank you for the time. I want to especially thank Senator Simpson for his leadership. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): At the end of the day, this was all about getting America back on track. When you're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that you spend, that can't continue much longer. I think everybody really does understand that, and it's going to require all of us - those who are the most fortunate among us - but it's really going to require every American to contribute to a solution. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Yeah, we can do this. We can make America so much better for the future, but it's going to require all of us to come together to do a little something now to prevent a catastrophe later. You know, we can do this. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Yup. You're a patriot. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Conrad, thanks again for your time. Senator KENT CONRAD (Democrat, North Dakota; Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): You bet. NEAL CONAN, host: Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and a member of the president's fiscal commission. Also with us, staying with us is Senator Alan Simpson, former senator from Wyoming and co-chair of the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming to you from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we go next to - this is Carmen(ph). Carmen with us from Orlando. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Yes. CARMEN (Caller): Yes. First of all, gentlemen, I wanted to thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to say I'm a U.S. citizen, taxpayer, honorable workingperson. I lost my job in 2008. I have not found employment. I have been - I have a master's degree, and I speak four languages. CARMEN (Caller): I got unemployment, and on my unemployment, I have to pay taxes. Since then, I have been doing small consulting jobs here and there. But what I don't understand is the government continues to squeeze the middle class, and the upper class that is making over 250,000 and up, they're going to get away with not paying their fair share in taxes. And that, to me, is just reprehensible. It's wrong. CARMEN (Caller): And what you're - is going to happen is a class war in this country. Pretty soon, the U.S. is going to be equivalent with all other Third World countries, where you have a rich class and everybody else. And I will take my answer off the air. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you, Carmen. And, Senator Simpson, I'm sure you saw much of the same thing. I can't tell you how many calls and emails we've gotten saying end the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Well, I - as I say, I wouldn't have - if I had been in the Senate when it first came up under the previous administration, I wouldn't have voted for it. I think it's absurd, especially the - Kent never gave you the figure. The figure of revenue to GDP is 15 percent. It has historically been 19 or 19.1. You can't get there, and you can't get there by giving tax cuts to people over $250,000. I don't - I agree with that totally. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Admiral Mullen, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the greatest threat to America's security is the debt. And in The Economist, which is a great magazine, a few weeks ago, it was called the rich versus the rest. And this lady is absolutely correct. There's going to be a class warfare situation here - already is. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): The rich will take care of themselves. The money guys who worship money worship money over the United States of America. I've seen that in my lifetime. I know what that is. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): I'm ready. I'm a fortunate one. I never took - I was on active duty in the Army. I never took the G.I. loan because I knew that I could afford to do that myself. I did do the G.I. bill. I never took anything I could. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): I never got into Medicare until I was 78. When they found out that I had an insurance, which I paid for out of my own pocket, not some cushy one, I have a pension, yes. I put in 8 percent of my salary for 18 years. I'm ready to cut that. I'm ready to do - I'm ready to means test Social Security for myself. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): But for heaven's sakes, for a guy that could buy half the county goes -gets an operation at the age of 80 for his heart and walks up and down the street and tells people that it cost 180,000 bucks, but he only had to pay 1,800. That's stupefying. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Simpson, we just have a minute or so left, but I did want to ask you, you described a kind of brickbats that you've got. Obviously, earlier this week, Congressman Ryan put out his proposal, and, boy, he's getting his share of criticism too. NEAL CONAN, host: How easy is this going to be in the context of a 2012 budget, again, with people talking about trillions of dollars in cuts against the backdrop of a national election? There's going to be a presidential election. Everybody in Congress is going to be up and very skittish. He's been - for example, Congressman Ryan has been criticized for not addressing Social Security and not addressing defense cuts. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Yeah. Well, that's - he didn't. He and Hensarling and Camp are very bright, very bright, thoughtful conservatives - and I mean that - along with a very bright thoughtful liberal, Xavier Becerra, who was part of our commission. These are good people. But for heaven's sakes, he didn't vote for it because he said we didn't do enough on Medicare. Well, he did a number pretty well on Medicare. I understand what's he's doing. Give him credit for throwing something in the game. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): If you don't like something and you're bitching and whining, throw in an alternative. We call it the Becerra rule, and he stated it clearly in the commission. If you don't like it, put in a plan. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Now, look at Jan Schakowsky, a liberal Democrat from Illinois. I enjoy her. I like her as a person. Now, she put in a plan. I didn't like it, but she had the guts to put in a plan. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Stop the bitching. Stop the whining. Stop criticizing. Have anybody that's saying this is unacceptable - we don't like Ryan. We don't like Bowles. We don't like Simpson. We don't like anybody. We just want you to cut spending and then leave everything else off the table. NEAL CONAN, host: And I'm going to finish your thought for you, Senator Simpson. Give us a plan. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): OK. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you very much for your time today. Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming; Co-chair, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform): Get a plan. NEAL CONAN, host: This is NPR News.

This April, Steve Bell, a centrist, Alison Acosta Fraser, with the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Robert Greenstein, at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, each offered their ideas on how to reign in the massive federal debt. Now, listeners submit their solutions. Former Sen. Alan Simpson, (R-Wyo.), co-chair, President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Sen. Kent Conrad, (D-N.D.),chair, Senate Budget Committee

Im April dieses Jahres haben der Anhänger der politischen Mitte, Steve Bell, Alison Acosta Fraser von der konservativen Stiftung Kulturerbe (Heritage Foundation) und Robert Greenstein vom liberalen Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Zentrum für Haushalt und politische Prioritäten) jeweils ihre Ideen zur Eindämmung der massiven Bundesverschuldung vorgestellt. Jetzt können die Zuhörer ihre Lösungen einreichen. Ehemaliger Senator Alan Simpson, (R-Wyo.), Ko-Vorsitzender von Präsident Obamas Nationaler Kommission für fiskalische Verantwortung und Reform\nSenator Kent Conrad, (D-N.D.), Vorsitzender des Haushaltsausschusses des Senats

今年 4 月，中间派人士史蒂夫·贝尔、保守派传统基金会的艾莉森·阿科斯塔·弗雷泽和自由派预算与优先政策中心的罗伯特·格林斯坦，各自就如何控制庞大的联邦债务提出了自己的想法。现在，听众发来了他们的解决方案。艾伦·辛普森：前怀俄明州共和党参议员，任奥巴马总统的全国财政责任和改革委员会联合主席，肯特·康拉德：北达科他州民主党参议员，任参议院预算委员会主席

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan. NEAL CONAN, host: And here are headlines from some stories we're following here today at NPR News. Well, headlines from just one story, actually: the ongoing battle over the federal budget and the possible shutdown of the government if no deal is made by tomorrow night at midnight. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson is following the story and joins us here in Studio 3A. NEAL CONAN, host: Mara, always good of you to join us. MARA LIASSON: Thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: And we have some news. A new resolution just passed in the House of Representatives that would appear to extend the government for another week. MARA LIASSON: Yes. This is another one of these temporary - what the White House derisively calls - tollbooth measures, where it would fund the government for another week with $12 billion of cuts, but it would fund the Pentagon for the rest of the year. MARA LIASSON: And it's called the support our troops bill or fund our troops bill, and it's basically the latest gambit from the Republicans in the blame game. They want to say, see, we're keeping the government open. We're not forcing a shutdown. And if you don't vote for this, you're responsible for shutting down the government. NEAL CONAN, host: You Democrats in the Senate. MARA LIASSON: You Democrats in the Senate. NEAL CONAN, host: You, Mr. Democratic President. MARA LIASSON: But the president and the Senate Democratic leader have both said enough is enough. We're not going to pass anymore one-week spending bills; they've already passed two previously this year alone. And they're saying it's time to come up with a compromise. And that's the other thing we're watching today, which is the leaders are back at the White House. NEAL CONAN, host: They just came out. MARA LIASSON: Oh, they did. NEAL CONAN, host: They just came out. Indeed, this is a - Senator Reid was just on TV saying it's a shame we've not been able to reach a conclusion on this, and they continue to work on it. MARA LIASSON: They went back into the White House? NEAL CONAN, host: No, they just came out of the White House. MARA LIASSON: OK. So they're finished for today. NEAL CONAN, host: It looks like they're finished for today... MARA LIASSON: OK. NEAL CONAN, host: ...yes. MARA LIASSON: OK. Well, it sounds like we're where we were before they went in, which is that the numbers were getting closer and closer, somewhere between 35 and $40 billion in cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year. MARA LIASSON: But the biggest sticking points were what was going to happen to these policy riders. Republicans want to pass a funding bill for the rest of this year that includes restrictions on abortion and the EPA, and Democrats don't want that. NEAL CONAN, host: And does either side, at this point, we mentioned - it seems like - are both sides posturing here? MARA LIASSON: Both sides are posturing to a certain point, but there's a lot of things that are going on. Number one, in terms of who's moved farther to the middle - the Democrats and the president certainly have moved. They started out with zero cuts. Now, they're up to somewhere around 35. The Republicans who - John Boehner, the speaker, had - originally had a number about 31 or 32, he kind of knew where the center of this was, but he got pushed to the right by his Tea Party freshmen. And then, he was asking for $61 billion in cuts, which he's come down off of a bit. MARA LIASSON: But the interesting question, for me, is in terms of whose leadership this undercuts. The president prospers when there is a bipartisan deal because that is the position that he's chosen for himself, someone who can bridge differences, work out compromises. He's the father, you know, who presides over these squabbling children, and he talks about them derisively, both Democrats and Republicans, how they just, you know, can't seemed to act like grownups... NEAL CONAN, host: Act like grownups. MARA LIASSON: ...like me is the implied thought. MARA LIASSON: John Boehner, on the other hand, could pass any number of these compromised proposals if he wanted to pass them with some Democratic votes. NEAL CONAN, host: And without some Republicans. MARA LIASSON: Without some Republicans. He's going to lose some Republican votes. But the question is, how many Republican votes is he willing to do without? If he insists on getting to 218, which is the majority, with Republican votes only, that means he can only lose 23 or so Republican votes. And he would probably have to rely on some Blue Dog Democrats to pass it, which means he has to compromise a little more. And that is the big question. MARA LIASSON: He might feel it's a sign of weakness as a speaker to not be able to get to the majority number of 218 with - by using Democrats to get to that number. We don't know. MARA LIASSON: But it's - this is the kind of thing that has seemed to be a relatively easy compromise to get to, but it's been remarkably difficult, which suggests that there are tremendous leadership challenges, and the leaders in these negotiations are not that secure in their leadership position. NEAL CONAN, host: And finally, how long will it take, even if they make an agreement, to get it passed? MARA LIASSON: First of all, the House Republican leadership had a new rule this year where they said everything has to be posted for 72 hours before it was voted on. NEAL CONAN, host: Three days. MARA LIASSON: And the president has said if it's just a matter of that -paperwork, in other words - he's perfectly happy to pass a two- or three-day temporary bill in order to get the bill enrolled and to have it posted on the Internet for the requisite number of hours. MARA LIASSON: So it would probably take a couple of days, but in that time, they would pass some kind of a short-term stopgap just to get them to the final compromise vote. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson joined us here in Studio 3A. Obviously, there will be more later today as developments continue. NEAL CONAN, host: We thank you for your time. MARA LIASSON: Thank you.

President Obama meets Thursday with Congressional leaders to try to reach a last-minute compromise on the 2011 budget. If they can't agree, the government will shut down at midnight Friday. NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson gives an update on what progress — if any — is being made.

Präsident Obama trifft sich am Donnerstag mit den Führern des Kongresses, um zu versuchen, in letzter Minute einen Kompromiss zum Haushalt 2011 zu erzielen. Wenn sie sich nicht einigen können, wird die Regierung am Freitag um Mitternacht schließen. Die nationale politische Korrespondentin von NPR, Mara Liasson, gibt ein Update darüber, welche Fortschritte – falls vorhanden – gemacht werden.

奥巴马总统星期四与国会领导人会面，试图就2011年预算案达成最后一分钟的妥协。如果他们不能达成一致，政府将在周五午夜关闭。全国公共广播电台国家政治通讯员马拉·利亚松报道了目前的进展。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And now we turn to two political analysts to weigh in on Senator Obama's presidential campaign. We've got Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton; and also with us, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Welcome to you both. And responses, first of all. Larry first. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): Well, thank you. I've - look, Obama has a real shot. That's all you could say right now. The field on the Democratic side is structured so that Obama could manage to get the nomination, though it won't be easy. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): But it's not as though he's running against candidates who are so heavily favored that it becomes impossible for him to succeed. So I've - you know, the race question, so many of these other questions tend to fade as the campaign moves forward. And that's what I guess is going to happen here. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now Melissa, what do you think? Did you hear anything that surprised you from David or is the campaign playing it safe so far? Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): Well, I think mostly what I heard was a lot of what depressed me from the senior strategist, David Axelrod. You know, Barack Obama was polling at 31 in Chicago among African-Americans at the beginning of the Senate race and absolutely did pull at 95 percent of the African-American vote. Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): But his opponent in that race was Alan Keyes. He also pulled in something like 70 percent of the white vote. Now that simply is not going to happen in the presidential race. They can't expect that they're going to be running against virtually no one. Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): So, you know, I really believe that Barack Obama has good answers to the questions that you posed. In other words, he has taken some controversial stances. He should have a clear message around which his campaign is organized. As he pointed out, John Edwards is very clearly talking about poverty, inequality, the growing gap in wealth, the ways in which the middle class and the working class can no longer aspire the way they once were able to. Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): We need Barack Obama's senior strategist to be able to tell us in very clear language beyond "The Audacity of Hope" what this campaign is about. And until he can do it, this notion that, you know, hope or optimism or bringing people together is enough to win the presidency is simply foolhardy. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Again, I'm going to go to Larry first and then to you, Melissa. Let's analyze a little bit of where Barack Obama falls in the scheme of black presidential candidates. We had Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88. Last time around, we had Carol Moseley-Braun, a former senator, Reverend Al Sharpton. Is Barack Obama a new kind of African-American candidate, Larry? Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): Of course. I would compare him more to Colin Powell than to anybody that you just mentioned. The others you mentioned were protest candidates or minor candidates, and they didn't have any realistic prospect of even winning the nomination, much less the general election. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): Had Colin Powell ran for president in 1996, his biggest task or bigger task would have been winning the Republican nomination. He might well have been elected president had he been the Republican nominee. Clinton was weaker at that time than people understood. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): But Barack Obama is in a class by himself because he does have a real opportunity to win the Democratic nomination. It's difficult to say how big an opportunity. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): And I would disagree with Melissa a little bit about the focus of the campaign. This is a campaign that could very easily be shaped almost entirely by the war in Iraq. You won't necessarily have to have a candidate coming up with a compelling platform. It's where they position themselves on Iraq that could produce a nomination in an election. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Melissa, we've only… Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): The advantage there, he's got great advantage there. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Melissa, we've only got about a minute left. Any final thoughts? Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): Yeah, again on this question of race. You know, Obama's senior strategist telling us that he hopes there won't be people who will vote against Obama because he's African-American, but that is wishful thinking. We know of course there will be an enormous population of voters who are in fact going to vote against Barack, or at least vote for some other candidates because of his race. Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): Given that that is true, I do think it's going to be quite important for the Obama camp to make a decision about how they're going to address the race question on a consistent basis - the ways in which they're going to develop a sense of trust among African-American voters, a sense of hope and optimism as they're trying to build amongst white voters. But also sort of a realistic view that there continues to be some real racial opposition to an African-American candidate for the U.S. presidency. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right, well Melissa Harris-Lacewell is associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University. She joined us from the studios of Princeton University. And from phone, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Thank you both so much. Mr. LARRY SABATO (Director, Center for Politics, University of Virginia): Thank you. Prof. MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL (Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And just ahead, is Iran helping Iraqi insurgents? We weigh the latest evidence. Plus, the Grammys - winners and losers. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NPR News.

Melissa Harris Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, and Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, talk with Farai Chideya about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential bid.

Melissa Harris Lacewell, außerordentliche Professorin für Politik und Afroamerikanistik Studien an der Princeton University, und Larry Sabato, Direktor des Politikzentrums der Universität von Virginia, sprechen mit Farai Chideya über die Präsidentschaftskandidatur von Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

普林斯顿大学政治和非裔美国人研究副教授梅丽莎·哈里斯·莱斯韦尔和弗吉尼亚大学政治中心主任拉里·萨巴托与法拉伊奇德亚讨论了参议员巴拉克奥巴马 (伊利诺伊州-民主党) 的总统竞选。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now we're going to head into the Barbershop. That's where we invite interesting people to talk about what's in the news and what's on their minds. There was an awful lot in the news this week, some of which we've already addressed. But we want to spend some time on this - this is the exchange between President Trump and CNN's Jim Acosta that ended with the White House revoking Acosta's press pass. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Just sit down, please. Well, when you report fake news - no. When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And it was jarring, but it was just the latest blow in the president's ongoing attack on the American news media. We wanted to talk a bit more about this because the journalists who cover the president are now becoming the story itself, and that raises a lot of questions about just how journalists should go about doing their jobs in this very strange moment. So we've called on three veteran journalists to talk with us about this. Joining us in our studios in Washington, D.C., is Susan Glasser, staff writer at The New Yorker. Welcome back. SUSAN GLASSER: Thank you so much. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan is speaking to us from our studios in New York. Margaret Selvan, welcome back to you. MARGARET SULLIVAN: Hi, Michel. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And Kelly McBride is a senior vice president at the Poynter Institute. That's an organization that studies and provides guidance for the media. She is speaking to us from St. Petersburg, Fla. Kelly McBride, thank you so much as well. KELLY MCBRIDE: You're welcome. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And, you know, yes, I think we know the president frequently clashes with reporters, but this is the first time that we've seen him actually deny people's credentials since he took office. And then also remarkable that following the exchange, the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, shared what I think reasonable people see as an altered video justifying the suspension of Acosta's pass. Now, Susan, you wrote about this in your weekly letter from washington about what a divisive and unusual week this has been. How concerned should we be about all of this, particularly people who are not in the media? SUSAN GLASSER: Well, look. I do think it's extremely disturbing on so many levels. Obviously, we have a norm-shattering president. Already one of the norms that he's most consistently railed about is that of respect for the free and independent press. As you know, even before he became president, this was a theme of Trump's What I'm disturbed by is, No. 1, it's by design. This is a political calculation. You saw this actually from the moment that President Trump entered office - actually was in February of 2017 that he first used the term enemy of the people to refer to journalists. Now, of course, I'd like to say to your listeners - we're not the enemy of the people. I lived in Russia for four years. When Stalin sent millions to the gulag, the official sentence that they used to condemn people to the camps was enemy of the people. This is a phrase that President Trump knows full well is resonant with that. And it is contrary to our Constitution, which enshrines protections for journalists. And, you know, that exchange the other day, just quickly, to me, encapsulated, you know, how calculated President Trump's attacks on us are, you know. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: To that point, you know, Kelly, you wrote an interesting column about this. And you offered an interesting perspective, which is that, namely, this - given that this is calculated, that Jim Acosta should have responded differently. And that you also say that his own behavior was unprofessional and that this could have been anticipated, and he could have handled this differently. Could you talk a little bit more, as briefly as you can, about why you say that? KELLY MCBRIDE: So historically, the White House press corps has notoriously asked long-winded double-barreled argumentative questions, but that is not the best practice for asking questions. And we teach this all the time to journalists that the best practice for asking questions is to ask a neutral question and ask an open-ended question. And I wish that Jim Acosta had done that because then it would not have opened the door for the president to accuse him of being an enemy of the people, fake news, biased. And what you saw, you saw the president this week being horrific to three other reporters who were doing just that, who were asking neutral, open-ended, Hard-hitting questions. And what happens when you do that is it reveals the true president right? And it doesn't allow him to seize control of the situation in the way that an argumentative question allows him to seize control. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I have to say, though, Margaret, as a former White House correspondent myself, I saw plenty of argumentative, obnoxious, attention-seeking reporters, particularly from conservative media outlets it has to be said. Their credentials have never been pulled. KELLY MCBRIDE: Oh, yeah, never. I mean, and of course he's not going to pull anybody's credentials who is on his side. But - and I'm not suggesting that White House press conferences are anything other than theater, but if they were, we would get better results. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Margaret, what do you have to say about this? MARGARET SULLIVAN: Well, I actually wrote a column saying that I thought that CNN should take a very strong stand on this and sue the Trump White House because whether or not we like Jim Acosta's particular style of asking questions - I think that is, you know, something we can talk about, of course - but I think it's beside the point, which is that the president and the White House shouldn't be determining whose reporting they like and don't like because that's a very slippery slope. You know, you start to go down that road and then it's going to be like, well, we liked this story you wrote, so you're in. But we didn't like this story you wrote, and so you're out. And I think there's a really serious First Amendment issue here that should be addressed and addressed in court. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: On what grounds? I mean, what is that legal question here that would be taken to court? MARGARET SULLIVAN: Well, there's actually case law on this. I don't think I can get too into the weeds on it, but there's a 1977 case that suggests that, you know, that government actors, governments cannot pick and choose who they will allow to have a press pass when there is general access for the press. That doesn't mean that the president or someone else can't decide to have an exclusive interview or give particular information to somebody, but when there is general access, you can't start saying you're in and you're out. And so there's, you know, there's some - there's something to build on here from a legal perspective. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let me reference something that Kelly brought up earlier. Also on Wednesday, the president called a question from PBS's Yamiche Alcindor racist when she said - correctly in my view - that some white nationalists are thought to be emboldened by the president. And the very next day, the president tangled with another journalist here responding to a question from CNN's Abby Phillips - who also, I will note, happens to be an African-American woman - about the new acting attorney general. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot. You ask a lot of stupid questions. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And he also took shots again at April Ryan from Urban Radio Networks, calling her nasty and a loser. So, Kelly, a lot of people - I mean, listeners who are listening to our conversation, a lot of people have been tweeting and saying things online that the media should walk out, that they should boycott this. And what do you say to that? KELLY MCBRIDE: I wish they would, I really do. I wish that the White House Correspondents Association would band together, not to present a united press, but to present a united defense of the First Amendment. I completely agree with Margaret that the president should not pick and choose who is admitted into the press corps and into the press conferences. And I wish that they would band together when the president refuses to ask a question to then have the next reporter follow up and insist that that question is answered. And also to - I think that they should boycott the press conferences until he allows Jim Acosta to come back into the White House. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But, Margaret, you made the point that that would - that that's not going to happen, so... MARGARET SULLIVAN: Well, what worries me about that is that I think when reporters say we're going to walk out, we're going to boycott, We're going to do a blackout, something like that, they're essentially walking away from their core responsibility, which is to inform citizens. So I don't think it's the right action. And, you know, I also think that it then cedes the coverage over to those press people or media figures or media organizations who are most sympathetic to Trump and who would continue to report and be allowed special access. So I think that's counterproductive. There's no good - you know, look, there's no great answer here. And as Susan said so well, this is a situation that's been going on for a while, and this is just the latest chapter in it. And there really isn't a perfect answer. I understand that. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Susan. SUSAN GLASSER: You know, I think, in many ways, the debate about boycott or not is beside the point because it's not going to happen. Fox News is not going to boycott Donald Trump's White House press conferences. The context here is really important for people and to understand. There's had been a systematic elimination of the institutions of how the press is enabled to have access to the White House under President Trump. He and his press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, have essentially eliminated the daily briefing which occurred under presidents of both parties for decades. Essentially, even these press conferences are rare moments - increasingly rare moments of presidential spectacle. He just wanted to have a show the day after the election and maybe perhaps change the story. But essentially, the press conference is dead. The daily press briefing is dead. Meaningful, responsive answers to journalists' queries are dead. And that's the context in which... MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, so, we have a minute left. Susan, you've edited two major and important publications and you're a columnist at a third - some direction here. Fix it. SUSAN GLASSER: It's never been more important to bear witness and to not - to insist, as I do, that facts and reporting is not a partisan activity, that being independent and asking tough questions of the president is our job. Whether you like Jim Acosta's style or not is not the issue. The issue is clearly as I can put it is simply that the First Amendment not only enables us but requires us to do the job of asking tough, independent questions to the president. And, you know, each party thinks that you're doing a tough job. It's just the way that journalism is. And don't let people convince you that that's partisan. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We have to leave it there for now. So much more to discuss. And I hope we will talk again. That's Susan Glasser of The New Yorker, Margaret Sullivan, columnist with The Washington Post, Kelly McBride, senior vice president at the Poynter Institute. Thanks to all. KELLY MCBRIDE: Thank you. SUSAN GLASSER: You're welcome.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan and Poynter Institute senior vice president Kelly McBride.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit Susan Glasser vom New Yorker, Margaret Sullivan von der Washington Post und Kelly McBride, Senior-Vizepräsident des Poynter Institute.

NPR的米歇尔·马丁与《纽约客》编剧苏珊·格拉瑟、《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家玛格丽特·沙利文和波因特研究所高级副校长凯利·麦克布莱德进行了交谈。

MICHEL MARTIN, host: Valentine's Day is Wednesday. So if you are looking for a movie to share with your sweetie, we just might have one for you - "Daddy's Little Girls." It was written by Tyler Perry and stars one of Hollywood's busiest and most versatile young actresses, Gabrielle Union. MICHEL MARTIN, host: She plays Julia, a hard charging attorney who tries to help a mechanic regain custody of his three young daughters. Julia finds an unconventional love story along the way. I spoke with her earlier this week about her career and the new film. MICHEL MARTIN, host: You've been a cheerleader, a minister's daughter, a doctor - my personal favorite - a Klingon. Now you're a tough-as-nails lawyer. What attracted you to this role? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): You know, actually just working with Tyler. I have seen "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" and I'm a huge Kimberly Elise fan, and I always hoped that she would be able to be a true leading lady and not just, sort of, relegated to, you know, the long suffering wife or girlfriend that we've kind of seen her. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): And then I saw "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" and she was this multifaceted, funny, beautiful, vivacious woman that God - to have this amazing journey. And I said I want that. Now like, well, that comes with Tyler Perry. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): So I sought out his agent, on a plane - we happen to be sitting next to each other - and told him I want to work with Tyler, and he set up a meeting. And about a month later, he turned in a draft and he had written it for me and we started filming a couple of months after that. MICHEL MARTIN, host: He wrote this for you… Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Yeah. MICHEL MARTIN, host: That must be a very great feeling. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Humbling, certainly. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Tyler Perry's work is known to many people because of his - because he's done many stage plays and he's translated two of those into movies. And he usually stars in them, as this character, Madea, who's kind of everybody's fictional, sassy, you know, grandma with, you know, full of that, you know, home wisdom kind of character. And that character is not in this film. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): No. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Some people love his work. They think it's fun. They think it speaks, you know, home truths, as I said. But it makes some people uncomfortable. They think it traffics in stereotypes, and I'd wonder what you think about that. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): I have to admit I was guilty of that. A friend of mine - Boris Kodjoe and his wife, Nicole Ari Parker - they said, you know what, suspend your preconceived notions for one evening and just go to the Kodak and see one of Tyler's plays. And this is before I even had seen "Diary of A Mad Black Woman." Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): And I went to the Kodak Theater. The man had sold out the Kodak Theater - three nights in a row. I went, and they said don't just watch what's happening on stage, look at the audience. And, you know, I watched the audience. And people came in their Sunday best, you know, actually interacted with the characters on the stage - which I'd never seen before - and had a blast. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): And I have to say that, you know, it - while it may not be for everybody, there are many, many people who enjoy the levity and the release of his plays. And who am I to judge what brings somebody else joy? MICHEL MARTIN, host: Okay. When speaking of having preconceived notions about people, let's hear a short clip from the film where you, your character Julia, is introduced to Monty, and Monty is coming to you for help. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): (As Julia) Okay. What you need is a family law attorney. Okay? And if you can't afford one, the court will appoint one. Mr. IDRIS ELBA (Actor): (As Monty) I can't walk in there with a public lawyer. Their mama spent a lot of money in a lawyer and I need a bulldog like you. No offense. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): (As Julia) But our firm charges $500 an hour. Can you afford that? Mr. IDRIS ELBA (Actor): (As Monty) I got $1,200 to my name. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): (As Julia) Look, Mr… Mr. IDRIS ELBA (Actor): (As Monty) No. No. Just call me Monty. Look, sister, I'm trying to get - Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): (As Julia) Typical. Typical. I thought more of you but it's real typical. I'm not your sister, OK? I don't appreciate you coming into my office, asking for favors, playing the race thing. It's sad and it's pathetic. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Why do you want your daughters back so badly? You getting check for them, or some sort of government assistance? Mr. IDRIS ELBA (Actor): (As Monty) Go to hell. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): (As Julia) Well, that, that, my friend, is exactly how you get what you want. Mr. IDRIS ELBA (Actor): (As Monty) Get a man. Get a life. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Ouch. Yeah. Ouch. As if a man is the cure-all. Well, I mean, you know, this film deals with relationships between black men and women. And that is a much-discussed subject. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Yeah. MICHEL MARTIN, host: And this scene kind of plays out, you know black woman hearing that black men are irresponsible, and black men saying that, you know, black women are just too much - just too tough, in essence, just not sort of sensitive enough. MICHEL MARTIN, host: So talk to me about that, I mean, do you think that this - first all, do you think this is a fair representation of a reality or do you think that this is, in effect, a stereotype? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): I think it's pretty darn accurate, to be honest. I think there's a lot of things that occur within the African-American community, that we would prefer to stay within the African-American community - that we get a little nervous when you start having scenes or dialogue that we know is going to be viewed and heard on a national or global scale. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): But I think that's, you know, that's exactly what we need, is more dialogue. And what makes us uncomfortable is, I think, kind of exciting. MICHEL MARTIN, host: What truths do you think, that this expresses? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Within a lot of African-American households, I think, there's an idea that black men don't want to take an active participation in the lives of their children. That if they do, there has to be some sort of ulterior motive. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): There's also this idea that if a woman speaks her mind that she's somehow not getting enough sex, and that's cure all. And that she's some sort of a prude or an ice queen. And I just think that it just goes to show that we need more dialogue to sort of dispel this mis- and preconceived notions about - that we have about one another. MICHEL MARTIN, host: The film also deals with class - the fact that Julia is better educated than her love interest and her friends give her a hard time about it. But I'd like to ask you, has that been part of your reality? And you are single again, you are famous, you are a college graduate, you are very lovely. Does all that make it harder to find Mr. Right? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Before I got married, I dated the gamut. The guys I tended to date, you know, didn't necessarily have it altogether but I had a great time. So, you know, I think now the struggle is with a lot of women who are, you know, career, you know, career oriented, ambitious, highly educated, what we say a lot is, you know, I just want a good man. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): And - we had this conversation with my girlfriends - I said, oh, it's okay, so if that good man was a plumber, you'd be - would that be okay? Well, no, I mean, that's not my type. You know, and I think we get a little too caught up in the antiquated notion of who and what prince charming is that we, you know, sort of developed when we were like nine years old. It has no place in a real, adult woman's, you know, life. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): And I think if we really, truly want a good man who's considerate, kind, generous, thoughtful, responsible, accountable - that those qualities and attributes aren't something that are reserved solely for upper-class, you know, men. MICHEL MARTIN, host: You've gotten a chance to smooch a lot of cute brothers in the course of your career. How - in general, how do you feel about the way Hollywood represents black relationships? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): I think we're getting better. There's always a long way to go. We always say - I have this joke amongst our group of friends. It's like, you know, even in your wildest dreams, you know, you can hobbits and Middle-earth and Gollum and oversized ape that falls in love with a blonde woman. But God forbids, you actually have a black man who wants his kids and wants to raise them. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): That's just whoa. We actually needed to be inspired by real events, you know, in order to make that movie, you know, "The Pursuit of Happiness." We have a ways to go. But, you know, I'm hopeful, you know, judging by the success of, you know, "Pursuit of Happiness," more recently, that, you know, not just the African-American community, but America at large is ready to embrace positive African-American characters. MICHEL MARTIN, host: And that Valentine's Day's coming up, as I mentioned, are you going to be getting your chocolates from anybody special? Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Jimmy Kimmel - that's my only date for that evening. I'm hoping Sara Silverman will be willing to share. That's my only date, unfortunately. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Okay. Now there was a Derek Jeter rumor. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): Yeah. And that's so randomly funny. You know, everyone's like oh, are you dating Derek Jeter? I'm like, no. They're like mm-hmm. Trust me. If I was dating Derek Jeter, we'd have a parade down Time Square and I would be head to toe in Yankee gear, chanting I love, you know, D.J. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Actress Gabrielle Union portrays Julia in the new Tyler Perry film, "Daddy's Little Girls." It's in theaters February 14th. And we leave you with music from the soundtrack. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Gabrielle, thank you so much for joining us. Ms. GABRIELLE UNION (Actress): No, thank you for having me. Mr. ANTHONY HAMILTON (Singer): (Singing) I don't want to struggle no more. I don't want to struggle no more. I don't want to struggle no more… MICHEL MARTIN, host: That's NEWS & NOTES.

Up-and-coming actress Gabrielle Union talks about her role in the film Daddy's Little Girls. Union plays Julia, a hard charging attorney who tries to help a mechanic regain custody of his three young daughters.

Die Nachwuchsschauspielerin Gabrielle Union spricht über ihre Rolle im Film Papas kleine Mädchen (Daddy's Little Girls). Union spielt Julia, eine hartnäckige Anwältin, die versucht, einem Mechaniker zu helfen, das Sorgerecht für seine drei kleinen Töchter zurückzuerlangen.

前途无量的女演员加布里埃尔·尤尼恩谈到她在电影《爸爸的小女孩》中的角色。尤尼恩扮演茱莉亚，一个努力工作的律师，试图帮助一个机械师重获他三个女儿的监护权。

TONY COX, host: Dealing with unemployment isn't limited to America. England also has a high unemployment rate, just over five percent. And people of color struggle there as well, especially in London, where the rate is above seven percent. That's where 43-year-old Phillip Mapoma lives with his wife and two young kids. TONY COX, host: Things were tough back when he got married 13 years ago. His wife was working but he wasn't. The search to find a job lasted months and began to take a toll on his marriage and his manhood. TONY COX, host: Here's Phillip Mapoma in his own words. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: My wife and I got married and I wasn't working at that time. I just graduated from college with a degree in architecture and I was convinced that I would get a job in no time. We were so excited getting married and we went to - had a fantastic honeymoon in Thailand and Bali. And we came back and we were and, you know, we're just so in love. She was so understanding. And she was just saying that, you know, listen now, I don't mind being the breadwinner, you know, because I know in no time you'll get a job. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: As the months went by, I think she became a bit worried as to whether I was really looking hard enough and, you know, whether I was actually getting comfortable with, you know, being supported by a woman, and also whether I was actually just taking advantage of her. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: But obviously, you know, from her point of view, you know, she was at work and I was at home. You know, and she didn't know what I was doing. I could have been sitting up there with my feet, you know, on the table, watching TV. You know, well, anything of that sort, even though I tried as much as I could, you know, to make sure the house is clean and I did my share of cooking. Because I wanted to be, you know, the modern black man that wasn't afraid to, you know, to cook for his wife, to clean the house and so forth. But I was finding it very, very frustrating, and so was she. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: It wasn't so much about being unemployed or my wife earning more money. It was really about being a man. And I realized that my job was where I derived my significance. And she always said, you know, honey, I love you. You know, and you know, we'll go through this together. But I always thought that I couldn't imagine how she could look at me with pride. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: You know, in England, it's very much harder for a black man to progress up the career ladder and get a good job. You'll find that it's much easier for a black woman to be successful in London than a black man. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: I think the most important thing to remember is that as long as you are doing your best and that, you know, you're not just sitting on your butt doing nothing, but you are going out there, whether it's cleaning or as a laborer, or whatever it is - as long as you are doing your bit to provide for your family and to further yourself, whether it's taking up, you know, an additional course at college. But in addition to that, it's for the black woman to be of supportive and understanding of what black men go through and efforts that they are making, trying to advance themselves in very, very difficult circumstances. Mr. PHILLIP MAPOMA: Things now are absolutely fantastic. I'm working in a really good job. I'm really enjoying myself. And my wife took some time off, you know, once she had the kids. And she's back at work, working part-time now. But, you know, we're both loving it. When we look back at the early years on what we went through, she's able to appreciate what I went through as a black man and what I still go through in the challenges I face. And I'm able to also be a bit more supportive of her in the home while I, you know, I do my bit outside of the home as well. TONY COX, host: That again is Philip Mapoma, a housing manager and a writer living in London. Philip chronicled his experiences of being unemployed in a commentary he wrote for Essence magazine published in April of last year. TONY COX, host: Just ahead, fewer folks than ever are joining labor unions. And how would you like to pay an entrance fee to drive enter to the city? The president has a plan that does just that. Plus, the latest word in Washington in our Political Corner.

In London, the unemployment rate is above 7 per cent for people of color. Londoner Phillip Mapoma shares his story of how looking for work took a toll on his marriage and his manhood.

In London liegt die Arbeitslosenquote der Farbigen über 7 Prozent. Der Londoner Phillip Mapoma erzählt, wie die Suche nach Arbeit seine Ehe und seine Männlichkeit beeinträchtigt hat.

在伦敦，有色人种的失业率超过7%。伦敦人菲利普·马波马分享了他的故事，关于找工作如何给他的婚姻和他的男子气概带来负面影响。

NEAL CONAN, host: We didn't get to your emails and Web comments on our regular day Tuesday, but it's not too late. NEAL CONAN, host: In our conversation about Japanese burial rituals and the task of paying final respects to the dead, we spoke with a Japanese Buddhist priest based in Los Angeles. NEAL CONAN, host: Barbara Ambros of Chapel Hill was listening and sent this comment. While I appreciate that you're covering Japanese funerals, I wish you would not just focus on funerals alone. Other religious organizations are engaging in aid relief for the living. They've opened their doors to the displaced, are collecting donations and distributing food and basic necessities, thus the contributions of Japanese religious institutions in this time of crisis go beyond the performance of funerals. NEAL CONAN, host: And in one piece of news today, in Japan, Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko spent an hour visiting with evacuees at a Tokyo center. The emperor also appeared on live television to talk about the continuing nuclear crisis. He expressed hope that the situation would get no worse and offered a prayer for people's safety. NEAL CONAN, host: We also have a correction. On Monday, as we talked about the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, I described a recent explosion in Jerusalem as the result of a suicide bomb. Alison Schmidt emailed to say not so. Police believe the explosive device was planted at the bus stop. Thanks for that note. NEAL CONAN, host: Camille Cucimano(ph) in California heard our discussion about longevity and the results of a decades-long study about what contributes to a longer life. She wrote, I'm 60, a writer all my life. Writers have typically been associated short, tortured, unhealthy lives. I am fit and healthy, always have been, and dropped my health care seven years ago when I started dancing Argentine tango, quit my stressful job and followed my passion - tango, tango, tango. I teach and dance it weekly. It's my insurance policy. NEAL CONAN, host: Carol Burnett joined us last week, and many of you wrote to share your memories. We were touched by this note from Elaine Gray in Chico, California. She wrote, my 90-year-old grandmother has advanced Alzheimer's disease, but when we put in a DVD recently, she sat right up and said, that's Carol Burnett. We were delighted and astounded. Thank you for the happiness. NEAL CONAN, host: If we make you happy, sad, or if you have a correction 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 me there, @nealconan, all one word.

Talk of the Nation listeners wrote to the show to share their strategies for living a long, happy life. Also, after our conversation with comedian and actress Carol Burnett, one listener wrote to tell us about what an icon she is.

Hörer von Talk of the Nation schrieben an die Sendung, um ihre Strategien für ein langes, glückliches Leben zu teilen. Außerdem schrieb uns ein Hörer nach unserem Gespräch mit der Komikerin und Schauspielerin Carol Burnett, um uns zu sagen, was für eine Ikone sie ist.

《国家访谈》的听众写信给节目组，分享他们长寿和幸福生活的秘诀。此外，在我们与喜剧演员、演员卡罗尔·伯内特交谈后，一位听众写信告诉我们她是怎样的一位偶像。

NEAL CONAN, host: And there are reports of heavy fighting in Ivory Coast today, almost four months after a presidential election there intended to resolve tensions. Instead the vote sparked a political standoff. Former President Laurent Gbagbo refuses to accept that he lost and refuses to leave office. Now forces loyal to the man the U.N. recognizes as the new president, Alassane Ouattara, have reportedly reached the administrative capital, Yamoussoukro. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton has been following developments in Ivory Coast and joins us now by phone from Accra in Ghana. And good evening. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Greetings to you all. NEAL CONAN, host: And can you tell us what's happening in Ivory Coast today? OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Well, it's been a lightning advance by Alassane Ouattara's forces. Now, Alassane Ouattara is a man widely recognized as the president-elect of Ivory Coast. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: This week his forces have taken strategic towns in the west of the country. They have also moved with lighting speed to the east of the country, near the Ghana border, the west of the country near Liberia. And now it appears that they are marching towards the world's top cocoa exporting seaport in San-Pedro in the southwest. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: And today, most significantly and most dramatically, they have taken, as you have said, Yamoussoukro, which is very symbolic. The main city is Abidjan, and that's where the government gathers. That's also the commercial capital. But Yamoussoukro is the city where the founding father of Ivory Coast, Felix Houphou�t-Boigny, was born, and that's - it's a city that many Ivorians feel for because of the historic ties. It is also only three hours' drive from Abidjan. So Neal, things are moving very fast. NEAL CONAN, host: And what about the man who will not leave, the former president who insists he's still the president, Laurent Gbagbo? Is he marshalling his forces? OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Laurent Gbagbo's forces seem to be putting up virtually no resistance from what we can see, in the west, in the east, heading now as Alassane Ouattara's forces are down to the southwest. But I don't think that will be the case in Abidjan. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Abidjan is a regional metropolis. It is the city that Laurent Gbagbo still controls most of it. Ouattara's troops control some part of the city. And if there is a battle for Abidjan, I'm afraid, Neal, it will be a bloody and deadly battle. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: The city has been the scene of some vicious fighting over the past two, three weeks. It has been emptied of up to a million of its residents, who have fled the fighting, the sound of gunfire, the sound of shelling, and the fighting between the two rival factions. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Yesterday, Laurent Gbagbo's spokesman, Ahoua Don Mello, said that it was time for a ceasefire and time for dialogue to be mediated by the newly appointed envoy, sent by the African Union. Well, for a start, Alassane Ouattara's people say that the envoy is too close to Gbagbo, and they have completely ignored that call. NEAL CONAN, host: And what of those people who have fled not just the capital but the country? Is there a crisis of refugees right now? OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Absolute humanitarian crisis. Hundreds - tens of thousands have been crossing into Liberia, across Ivory Coast's western border, because there has been heavy fighting in the West. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: I am across the border now in neighboring Ghana. Thousands of Ivorians and residents, not only Ivorians, because of course Ivory Coast is a regional magnet, so people from all over West Africa have settled or lived in Ivory Coast. They are also fleeing. People are fleeing wherever they can, and I think many Ivorians, many residents of Ivory Coast, feel that perhaps the hour has come, and that the civil war that everyone thought that the disputed elections in November would avoid may happen. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR West Africa correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, thank you very much, and of course we expect to hear more from you later today. OFEIBEA QUIST-ARCTON: Always a pleasure to be with you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Ofeibea Quist-Arcton joined us by phone from Ghana, and more on those stories and of course much more later today on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

Former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo has refused to accept the results of November's election. Forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara, the man recognized by the U.N. as the country's new president, have reportedly reached the capital. NPR's West Africa correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton reports.

Der frühere Präsident der Elfenbeinküste, Laurent Gbagbo, hat sich geweigert, das Wahlergebnis vom November zu akzeptieren. Berichten zufolge haben Truppen, die Alassane Ouattara, dem von den Vereinten Nationen als neuer Präsident des Landes anerkannten Mann, treu ergeben sind, die Hauptstadt erreicht. NPRs Westafrika-Korrespondentin Ofeibea Quist-Arcton berichtet.

前科特迪瓦总统洛朗·巴博拒绝接受11月的选举结果。据报道，忠于阿拉萨内·瓦塔拉的部队已经抵达首都。瓦塔拉是联合国承认的新总统。全国公共广播电台西非记者奥费比阿·奎斯特阿克顿报道。

IRA FLATOW, host: Moving inward a little from Titan - well, actually, we're going to move all the way in and go to that first planet, the first planet in our solar system, which is - Mercury, of course. You got those planets right, of the eight, where the temperatures are not frozen like on Titan. They can be skyrocketing to 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit on its sunny side. Of course it is a very dry heat. So (unintelligible)... IRA FLATOW, host: Yesterday marked the first time in history that a spacecraft has actually entered into orbit around Mercury. NASA's Messenger probe is taking the highest-resolution photos yet. It's also looking at things like Mercury's magnetic fields and what its atmosphere is made out of. IRA FLATOW, host: And did you know that Mercury had a magnetic field? Did you know that Mercury had a comet-like tail? There are other tales about Mercury that may surprise you, and here to talk about is the leader of the Messenger Mission and director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. - Sean Solomon. Hi, welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Thank you, Ira, glad to be with you. IRA FLATOW, host: So you got your Messenger going, working? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We did indeed. As you probably know, the spacecraft has been flying through the inner solar system for more than six and a half years, but last night we inserted the first spacecraft ever into orbit around the innermost planet. IRA FLATOW, host: So you've been popping the champagne? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Well, we've been checking out the characteristics of the orbit that we achieved. All looks terrific so far. It looks like we are in an orbit very close to the one that we planned. IRA FLATOW, host: And what is the shape of this orbit? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): It's highly elliptical. For reasons of thermal design, because the surface of Mercury is so hot, we need an elliptical orbit to radiate back into space a lot of the heat that we absorb when we're close to the planet on the day side. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): It's a 12-hour orbit. The closest approach to the planet is 200 kilometers, 120 miles. The most distant part of the orbit is more than 15,000 kilometers, nearly 10,000 miles off the surface. IRA FLATOW, host: So you have to get it out there to cool off, is what you're saying, at some point. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We need the altitude to cool off from when we are going over the hot day side of the planet. IRA FLATOW, host: And what makes Mercury so interesting to scientists to study? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Well, it is one of the family of inner planets that includes our own Earth, Mars and Venus. It is the smallest. It is the closest to the sun. And it's extreme in many respects. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): And what makes it interesting is that we can't claim to understand the processes that led to the formation and evolution of our own planet unless we can generalize those ideas to explain the outcome of the family of inner planets, the most extreme of which is Mercury. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): So Mercury's made out of the densest stuff. It's got the most dynamic atmosphere and magnetosphere. As you mentioned, it's got a magnetic field, when larger planets, like Mars and particularly Venus, do not. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): And despite the range of temperature between day and night, 600 degrees centigrade or 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit, it appears, on the basis of Earth-based radar observations, that Mercury has ice at its poles, locked and permanent cold traps on the floors of shadowed impact craters. IRA FLATOW, host: Wait, wait, wait a minute. My head is hurt - my hair is hurting on this. You mean that if you have a - you have a crater, and one side of the crater could be in the sunlight, but in the shadow there's ice, even though it could be 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit in the sun? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Yes. I don't mean to hurt your hair at all, Ira. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): But that is a possibility. The reason is as follows: Mercury's spin axis is nearly perpendicular to its orbital plane. So an impact crater is, of course, a topographic depression that's surrounded by a mountainous ring of high terrain. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): And so at the very poles of the planet, an impact crater, the entire floor is in permanent shadow. And as you move off the poles, a portion of the floor is in permanent shadow. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): And the atmosphere of Mercury is so thin, so tenuous, that it does not, as does the Earth's atmosphere, transport heat from the equator to the poles. And so a permanently shadowed region on the poles of Mercury would be looking out into black space and would be extraordinarily cold, 90 degrees Kelvin, nearly minus-200 degrees Fahrenheit, cold enough to trap, as ice, water and other volatile materials. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): So despite the fact that the day side is roasting, particularly near the equator, you could have permanent cold traps, deep freezes, at both the North and South Pole. IRA FLATOW, host: Wow. So what is the main instrument on this probe that is most important to you? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Well, we're carrying seven. They're all equally important. But... IRA FLATOW, host: Why am I not surprised would you say that like your children, right? What's my favorite child? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Exactly. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): The question is a kind of "Sophie's Choice" kind of - type of question... IRA FLATOW, host: Right. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): ...that I don't like to answer. And because this mission has been 15 years in the making - it was approved 12 years ago and confirmed 10 years ago, and it's been flying for six-and-a-half years. And I've been involved since the beginning. IRA FLATOW, host: Wow. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): They're almost like grandchildren. IRA FLATOW, host: I believe it. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): But the other thing we've learned from flying by Mercury three times on a route to yesterday's orbit insertion, is that the planet is quite complex. And the surface and its geological history, the interior and its dynamics, the atmosphere, most of which is derived from the surface, the magnetosphere, the envelop of space that surrounds the planet and is dominated by the magnetic field generated inside the planet and the interaction of that magnetosphere experiences with the solar wind and the interplanetary environment, all of these aspects of Mercury are interconnected in very important ways. And they really test our ideas about how planets work, to understand these interactions. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): So it - not only are these instruments like my children, but we are going to need the full complement of seven instruments with multiple sensors to sort out the diverse phenomena going on at Mercury and watch how these processes are all strongly interacting. IRA FLATOW, host: You got any Kodachrome? I mean, are we going to get any color pictures? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We are, indeed. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We are, indeed. Mercury, if you were to view it as a tourist out the window of a spacecraft, would look rather lunar-like, with a lot of gray tones. But there are subtle variations in color that we can enhance with image-processing techniques. We're going to image the entire surface for the first time in color. And we've got cameras that can take high-resolution monochrome images globally and really high-resolution images down to the 10 to 20-meter scale of targets. We've got a list of more than 2,000 targets that we've picked out from the flybys, and even from Mariner 10 images from more than 30 years ago. IRA FLATOW, host: That's - yeah, going way back. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Going way back. IRA FLATOW, host: Way back. And what is the most surprising thing that my listeners don't know about Mercury that you know and you want to share with us? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): That I knew? Well, we're learning things every time we get close to the planet. We're learning that little Mercury had an extraordinary volcanic history that resurfaced the planet to an extent spatially and over a time period much longer than we appreciate it. We're still trying to understand why little Mercury should have a magnetic field or have ices at its poles. The dynamics of the atmosphere, magnetosphere interaction are surprising us in their magnitude and in their speed. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We see processes with which we are familiar in the Earth's magnetosphere, having to do with space weather and the effect of solar storms on processes high off the Earth's surface. We're seeing analogues at Mercury. But unlike the situation on Earth, where time scales for these processes can be measured in hours, at Mercury they're measured in minutes, and the magnitude of these effects are one or more orders of magnitude greater than that at Earth. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): So it's going to be a wonderful laboratory for studying planetary processes that are much extreme than any that we see here on Earth, but that are common to those that we do experience, and therefore will deepen our understanding. IRA FLATOW, host: Talking about Mercury this hour on SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR, talking with Sean Solomon. IRA FLATOW, host: So Mercury's not just this hot rock, is what you're saying in great detail. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Not at all. Not at all. IRA FLATOW, host: Not just a hot rock sitting there. It's complex. It's got magnetic fields and even has a tail, a magnetic field tail that it's dragging. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): It has a magnetic field tail, but it also has a tail of atoms that are streaming away from Mercury's atmosphere. And that tail is produced by the pressure of sunlight on the atom's - in Mercury's atmosphere that lofts high enough to be subjected to enough sunlight to be pushed away. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Earth-based astronomers have shown that that tail extends more than a thousand planetary radii, more than two million kilometers in the anti-sunward direction of Mercury. And so to call it comet-like is a very good analogue. IRA FLATOW, host: Let's go to the phones. Fred in St. Joseph, Missouri. Hi, Fred. FRED (Caller): Hey, you guys. Hey, I'm a rocket scientist myself. I've got a degree in astronautic engineering from the Air Force Academy. And I just want to say, hey, congratulations. Job well done. I understand it was a 15-minute burn to get that thing inserted into orbit to close it up. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): That is correct, Fred. We changed the velocity of the spacecraft by nearly one kilometer per second, 863 meters per second. And we basically turned the largest thruster in the spacecraft in the direction that we were heading and turned on the burn for 15 minutes. We actually turned the spacecraft during the burn to make maximum use of the thrust. FRED (Caller): Okay. Does it require a plane change at all, or was it just used -you just were be able to negotiate from the orbit you already had? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): We stayed within the plane of the trajectory, if that's what you're asking. FRED (Caller): Wow. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): And... IRA FLATOW, host: So you just turned the spacecraft around and put the brakes on? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Exactly. Exactly. And because the brakes were on and we were in the gravitational field of the planet, there was a natural curvature to the trajectory. And we turned the spacecraft so that the thrust vector slowed our craft to the maximum extent possible during that burn. IRA FLATOW, host: And in the few seconds I have left, Sean, how long are you going to be there? Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Well, we're - we've got a year's worth of orbital operations ahead of us so far that will begin after a spacecraft commissioning phase on the fourth of April, when we'll be taking data nearly continuously - all kinds of data, imaging, magnetic field, you name it. And if there's propellant left over and NASA's willing, we may stay longer. IRA FLATOW, host: Good luck to you. It's been almost two decades' worth of work. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Thank you very much, Ira. We're very much looking forward to the scientific phase of this mission. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah, and we want to keep track. And we'll - you know, keep us in mind when you get some data coming back. We'll be back talking to you. Good luck. Mr. SEAN SOLOMON (Carnegie Institution): Thank you very much. Just give us a call anytime. IRA FLATOW, host: I will. Sean Solomon, leader of the Messenger Mission, director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at Carnegie Institute of Washington, D.C. IRA FLATOW, host: When we come back, don't go away. We're going to have an orchid extravaganza. Yeah. And you'll be able to watch it, too. Flora will be here with our Video Pick of the Week, including orchids. So stay with us. We'll be right back after this break. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.

NASA's Messenger Probe has been taking measurements of the planet Mercury since 2004. On Thursday it slowed itself down enough to enter an elliptical orbit around Mercury to look at the planet's atmosphere and geology. Principal investigator for the mission Sean Solomon discusses what the team hopes to find.

Die Messenger-Sonde der NASA führt seit 2004 Messungen des Planeten Merkur durch. Am Donnerstag wurde sie so weit abgebremst, dass sie in eine elliptische Umlaufbahn um Merkur einschwenken konnte, um die Atmosphäre und Geologie des Planeten zu untersuchen. Der leitende Forscher der Mission, Sean Solomon, erläutert, was das Team zu finden hofft.

NASA的信使号探测器自2004年以来一直在测量水星。星期四，其速度降到足够低，进入围绕水星运行的椭圆轨道，以观察水星的大气和地质情况。任务的首席调查员西恩·所罗门讨论了团队希望找到的东西。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: After weeks of intense negotiations, Canada has joined the new NAFTA. The U.S. and Mexico brokered changes to the trade deal back in August, and the Trump administration gave Canada until midnight to agree to the deal. President Trump is set to deliver remarks about the agreement later today. The administration is framing this as a win for the Trump playbook on trade, forcing even America's closest allies to re-examine trade agreements to win better terms for U.S. workers. Whether or not Congress will agree and ratify the deal is another matter. Christophe Bondy is on the line to talk to us about what we know so far. He was Canada's senior counsel in the trade deal Canada signed with the EU last year. Thanks so much for being with us. CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Thanks. Glad to be here. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Last night, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke briefly to reporters after a late-night cabinet meeting. This is what he said. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Prime Minister, what can you tell us about the deal? PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: It's a good day for Canada. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: A good day for Canada, Trudeau said. Is it? Do you agree? CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Yes. I think so. I mean, in the first place, it removes a great deal of uncertainty that's been floating over the NAFTA, which is the fundamental trade agreement for the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It's been floating over that agreement for the last two years. And based upon early reports of what's been agreed, Canada got pretty much what it was looking for in terms of this update. It has the Chapter 19 review, bi-national review of anti-dumping countervailing duty. It has gotten rid of this guillotine clause which is going to say that the agreement would terminate after five years. It's retained its cultural exemption, it's retained state-to-state dispute settlement and it also has enhanced environmental and labor protections, all of things Canada was looking for. In terms of the give on dairy, I think - and still it's really days to see, but it seems to be little more than what Canada had already proposed to the U.S. in the context of the CPP negotiations. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We should just note this was something President Trump was very animated about. He wanted the U.S. to have greater access to Canada's dairy market. The Trump administration is framing this as a victory, saying that the U.S. has greater access now, even greater access than it would have gotten under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. You're saying that's not necessarily the case? CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Well, I think there appears to be somewhat better access, but I'm not sure how much more it would have been than TPP. In any event, I think the important thing is that this is a positive outcome for all three of the NAFTA parties, and they can go forward on a more stable basis. Another thing for Canada in this was securing some continued access in terms of automotive trade. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Although Canada is not pleased with the Trump administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum, and those are still in place. Is that a disappointment? CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Well, that's right. The steel and aluminum tariffs that were imposed on national security grounds against Canada, your closest security partner, leading to proportionate responding tariffs by Canada on a wide range of U.S. products. They remain in place, but the thing is, you can't deal with all issues at the same time. So that is a separate dispute. Canada has brought proceedings about those measures, as have a number of countries, suggesting that they are not justified. So that remains to be settled another day. But in any event, it is helpful that we have achieved - and I congratulate Minister Freeland and Steve Verheul, who's counted as lead negotiator on this agreement, for having stuck to their guns and come through with what appears at first look to be a great outcome. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's not at all given that Congress is going to sign this, though, especially with uncertainty over the mid-term elections in November. Does Canada have a Plan B? CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Well, the NAFTA 1.0 is still in place. So I think there's more chance that Congress is going to sign this because it actually corresponds with the negotiating authority that the president was given that is for a trilateral deal. I mean, don't forget the context of which Canada was negotiating this with the U.S. is the U.S. president had said that he was going to update the NAFTA and so needed to get a deal from that point of view, and also didn't have authority to do bilateral. So this has much more greater chance of getting through. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Christophe Bondy. He was Canada's senior legal counselor in the trade deal signed with the EU last year. Christophe Bondy, thank you so much for your time. CHRISTOPHE BONDY: Thank you.

Rachel Martin talks to Christophe Bondy, who negotiated the EU trade deal for Canada, about Canada reaching a last-minute agreement on a deal that revises the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Rachel Martin spricht mit Christophe Bondy, der für Kanada das EU-Handelsabkommen ausgehandelt hat, über die Einigung Kanadas in letzter Minute auf ein Abkommen zur Überarbeitung des Nordamerikanischen Freihandelsabkommens.

雷切尔·马丁与克里斯托弗·邦迪就加拿大在最后一刻在修改《北美自由贸易协定》达成协议进行了对话。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The Trump administration says it will be relentless with sanctions on Iran. And a new round of sanctions took effect today. But the president says he's moving cautiously when it comes to oil. He's letting some of the biggest buyers of Iranian oil continue importing for now. As NPR's Michele Kelemen reports, the administration is having a hard time stepping up pressure on Iran without international support. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Even as he announced that China, India and other major Iranian oil importers are exempt from U.S. sanctions for now, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was talking tough. MIKE POMPEO: The regime has a choice. It can either do a 180-degree turn from its outlaw course of action and act like a normal country. Or it can see its economy crumble. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: He's laid out 12 demands that go well beyond getting Iran to curtail its nuclear program. The U.S. wants Iran to stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen and militias in Iraq. He's also calling on Iran to withdraw forces from Syria. MIKE POMPEO: Our ultimate goal is to convince the regime to abandon its current revolutionary course. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: And the U.S. continues to increase its demands. The head of his Iran Action Group, Brian Hook is criticizing Iran's domestic policies and says Iranians are fed up with the mismanagement of the economy. BRIAN HOOK: We agree with the Iranian people on all of these things - that they should do more to help the poor. They should get their environmental system under control. And they should stop spending money in places like Syria and Iraq and Yemen. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Administration officials say this is a very different approach than the Obama administration took. There's another big difference, says Elizabeth Rosenberg, who served in Obama's Treasury Department and is now with the Center for a New American Security. ELIZABETH ROSENBERG: The United States is going it alone this time. They are taking these actions independently without traditional security allies, without the close coordination of Iran's major oil consumers. Those are the ones that have the most leverage economically over Iran. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: And they still support the Iran nuclear deal. The Trump administration has managed to cut off nearly a half of Iran's oil sales since May. But Rosenberg says now comes the hard part. ELIZABETH ROSENBERG: Without partners to enforce its sanctions, the United States has a Herculean task of enforcement ahead of that to try and keep these measures buttoned up and everyone moving in the direction it wants them to go, which is away from Iran. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Eight importers of Iranian oil have been granted six-month waivers from U.S. sanctions. They are China, India, Italy, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey. The U.S. is also providing some exemptions to Iraq, a fragile nation and U.S. ally in the region that relies on trade with Iran. Administration officials won't say how much oil will continue to flow. And President Trump is pushing back at Iran hawks who say he's giving Iran too much leeway. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't want to drive the oil prices in the world up, so I'm not looking to be a great hero and bring it down to zero immediately. I could get the Iran oil down to zero immediately, but it would cause a shock to the market. I don't want to lift oil prices. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Trump administration officials also insist that Iran won't be able to use any oil revenue to fund proxy militias. Money will be held in escrow accounts to be used for legitimate trade - for humanitarian goods, for instance. That's something else U.S. Treasury officials will have to monitor. Michele Kelemen, NPR News, Washington.

The Trump administration says it will be relentless with its sanctions against Iran until it's a "normal country," but still giving major importers of Iranian oil a chance to continue business without penalties.

Die Trump-Administration sagt, dass sie ihre Sanktionen gegen den Iran so lange aufrechterhalten wird, bis das Land ein \"normales Land\" ist, gibt aber den großen Importeuren von iranischem Öl die Möglichkeit, ihre Geschäfte ohne Sanktionen fortzusetzen.

特朗普政府表示将毫不留情地对伊朗实施制裁，直到伊朗成为一个“正常国家”为止，但仍将给伊朗石油的主要进口国一个不受制裁影响、继续开展业务的机会。

MICHEL MARTIN, host: I'm Michel Martin. This is NEWS & NOTES. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Earlier in the program we discussed the ongoing conflict between Latino-Americans and African-Americans. Commentator Erin Aubry Kaplan is a Los Angeles native who has watched the division between the two communities for years. It's taken some time to put words to her feelings, but now she is ready to talk. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: For the last year I've had many thoughts about the whole black-brown crisis. I've kept them more or less in check, thinking they might affront people of color in this whole public desire to do some cultural exchanges - lay bridges across raging waters, and all that. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: I'm not against bridges, but I'm more and more convinced that we've got to look at the raging waters before we can build anything. So let's dive in. Black people are angry. OK, I'm angry, not at Latinos or at immigration. I'm angry that nobody talks about how immigration and the rise of Latinos effects black folks, except as a kind of inconvenience that has to be adapted to new circumstances. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: We're like old furniture that has to be rearranged in a new house, put into this corner or that second bedroom down the hallway. People aren't advocating getting rid of us, but they're busy making room for the new. The burden of moving, in other words, is on us. Yes, I know the call for black-brown brotherhood sounds entirely unthreatening. Quite the opposite. It sounds like just the kind of group empowerment we all need. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: I hear this a lot from black intellectuals versed in Marx in the 1960s. They say that black and brown people share a common oppression, that their divisions only embolden the white capitalistic powers. They point out that the original pueblo of Los Angeles was founded by blacks, Latinos and mixed-race people, for God's sake. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: I'm sorry, but history and theory alone don't compensate for the fact that black people today, as a group, are scarily unemployed, isolated, unhealthy, undereducated and over-incarcerated. Then they're asked to minimize these conditions and join a coalition that might not benefit them. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: Last year, during the height of the pro-immigration movement in L.A., I found myself in a room of black and Latino community activist-types. They were discussing how we all might better advance the story of black-brown unity as opposed to black-brown conflict. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: A noble idea, but it occurred to me that we were kind of jumping the gun. A story of unity requires unity. I don't mean unity like two neighbors getting along or two kids dating in high school across the color line. Interpersonal successes that are common, thank God. I mean something bigger. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: So I raised my hand and asked one Latino editor, what do you need us for? He thought about it and said we need you because of the civil rights movement. It was a good try - the right answer. But there really isn't one. The fact is that the pro-immigration movement, with its half million people in the streets of downtown L.A. and a network of support that's not just national but global, didn't need black people at all. Trust me, I was there. Ms. ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN: So I'm angry because everybody is pretending that we all have equal standing here, that we have equal say and our agendas are getting equal consideration. They're not. They never have. This doesn't mean that Latinos are the enemy. They're simply doing what they should be doing - supporting their own, fulfilling a political destiny. The big question that's been shoved to the bottom of everybody's list is what is our political destiny. Do black people have one? I'm still waiting to exhale. MICHEL MARTIN, host: Erin Aubry Kaplan is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

A commentator voices anger at lack of discussion of immigration's effects on African-Americans, and wonders what the political future holds.

Ein Kommentator äußert seine Wut über die fehlende Diskussion über die Auswirkungen der Einwanderung auf Afroamerikaner und fragt sich, was die politische Zukunft bringen wird.

一位评论员对没有讨论移民对非裔美国人的影响表示愤怒，并想知道这方面政治前景如何。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya and this is NEWS & NOTES. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's time now for our regular Africa Update with NPR Special Africa correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Hey, Charlayne. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Hello, Farai. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So let's talk a little bit about Zimbabwe. Still a nation running against strong negative winds, huge inflation. What's causing it and what's the impact? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let's first of all talk about what happened in December, because the inflation increased to 1,281 percent, which is the highest in the world. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: That means price raises in basic things like rent, bread, fuel. I mean gasoline is beyond the capacity of most people to pay. The lines are very long for people are trying to get buses, I'm told. The public hospitals in Zimbabwe are just jammed to the seams. The doctors are on strike because they're not getting enough pay. So you can imagine what's happening to the poor people. What's causing it is the inflation, of course, is leading to wildcat strikes and things like that. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Now, President Mugabe says that this is not mismanagement. That this is government sabotage by the West, particularly Great Britain which he still regards as the archenemy. But I think you'd get a strong argument for most economic analysts and of course the political analysts blamed all of this on the government, which is why they continue to strike as the country goes deeper into poverty. And there is the expectation that there will be more and more protests. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Charlayne, the president, Robert Mugabe, hasn't he tried to rebuild the agriculture sector after he essentially kicked out many of the white agribusiness farmers? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, he has kicked out most of them, and in addition to which, hundreds of thousands of black workers who worked on those farms also lost their jobs. He's invited them back, only a handful have answered that call. But clearly this is truth of just how desperate things have become. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, let's turn to the nation where you spend a lot of your time, South Africa. The ruling African National Congress just celebrated its 95th year - that's not 95 years of ruling but 95 years of existing - making it the oldest liberation movement on the continent. And though has been the ruling party in South Africa since the end of apartheid, the celebration comes at a time when it's facing a tough challenge, you know, the issue is something called WHAM 2. Tell us what that is and why it's causing some fissures in the body politic. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The problem now is that the deputy president who would normally step in to the presidency has been through many crises, not least rape charges which he was acquitted of, corruption charges which he is now facing. And so the tensions now are between these two people in a sense because the Mbeki wing of the party does not want Zuma to succeed him. And then there has been an ethnic factor added. I mean there are many Inkatha's in the government, including Mbeki. Zuma is a Zulu. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The last time there were Inkatha-Zulu clashes was in the run up to the '94 election when thousands of people were murdered, injured, maimed, all kinds of violence, and nobody wants to see this young Democratic country go back to that. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Now there are those, however, who say that this is just a sign of a young democracy moving into becoming a mature democracy. And one of those is an analyst, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Skelly Oligety(ph) and here's what he had to say. Mr. SKELLY OLIGETY (Journalist): I think it's more a sign of a healthy democracy than anything else. South Africa is slowly maturing. It's a very young country. It's only 12 years old. So of necessity, all the things that held the ANC together, the single mindedness of its original caucus, those have been achieved. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And there are lots of other issues on the table now, you know, the vast discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots, economic policy that has benefited a few people here in South Africa but not the vast majority. So these things are going to play out even as the debate between the Zuma people and the Mbeki people continues. Most people do think, however, that even though it's a young democracy, there are institutions in place that will see it through this time of turmoil. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Charlayne, we will definitely stay tuned until the ANC makes its decision in December of this year. Thank you so much, Charlayne. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you, Farai. It's always a pleasure. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Charlayne Hunter-Gault is NPR special Africa correspondent and Africa Update is a regular feature on NEWS & NOTES.

In December, inflation in Zimbabwe rose to 1,281 percent, the highest in the world. Also discussed: South Africa feels the growing pains of a young democracy.

Im Dezember stieg die Inflation in Simbabwe auf 1.281 Prozent, die höchste der Welt. Auch diskutiert: Südafrika spürt die Wachstumsschmerzen einer jungen Demokratie.

去年12月，津巴布韦的通货膨胀率上升到1281%，是世界上最高的。同样讨论：南非感受到了一个年轻的民主国家成长的痛苦。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And politics has a clear impact on American education. Take the schools across the United States struggling to meet state and federal standards, including No Child Left Behind. Ralph Bunche Elementary used to fall below all standardized measures. It's a school near Compton, California whose students are low-income, black and Latino. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Eight years ago, Bunche's poor test scores made it one of the lowest-ranking schools in the state - that is, until Mikara Solomon Davis arrived. The young, first-time principal taught and then went to graduate school, and she put in place a no non-sense accountability plan. I recently got the chance to ask Solomon Davis about how she's made the school a model of success. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So I just have to say, first of all, that you look even younger than I expected. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And I say that only because you have done tremendous things with Bunche. One thing that happens a lot if you go in as a young person in an older person's game is to get a little hateration. How did people react to seeing you show up? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Well, I have to say if the hateration was there, that it was definitely kept to themselves and amongst themselves. Now, I heard about it from people, you know, throughout the year. But in terms of respect and, you know, following policy and contributing, I have to say that my veteran group was easier than your younger group at that time. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): I think what happened was - especially with the veteran population - they came in to this profession for a reason. Kind of like the reason my grandparents, my grandparents on my father's side - African-American - were educators. And in that time, there was segregation. They lived in Florida. And the one thing my grandmother always says to me is while segregation definitely was negative, the positive was the chosen one were being taught by people who cared and love them. And now some people argue whether that's the case. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): And the veteran population at Bunche was that population. They were like my grandparent-type of - they really, I think, got excited that…They always would say to me you're an old woman in a young person's body. That I believe in education, I believe that our kids can learn and there's no excuse for them not learning. But they're not going to come here and disrespect you or us, either. And so, within about six months, the majority of the veteran group was like okay, hey. I can do this. They call me baby, which I love. I have no problem with that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So what did you do? The basic line now is that your school has extraordinary achievement levels. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Mm-hmm. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell me about those levels, and what did it take to get there? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Okay. There are a couple of levels. The main one in California is -and now with No Child Left Behind, it's changed to a national dialogue. But it was the academic performance index, and basically every school in the state, the goal is 800. And so what you'll find, unfortunately, is in your wealthy, middle-class areas, you'll find the schools at 800 and above. So we were a four - I think it was 450-something. But then the year I came, I think they were up to 501 that year. We are now 868. So that's a - it's almost doubled in… FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That is dramatic. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): …six years, which I've been told by various people that is almost unheard of with the population we're working with. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You mentioned that there is also a different measurement… Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: …that has come with the federal No Child Left Behind program. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Right. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How's your school doing on that? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Okay, that's called the Annual Yearly Progress. And basically, what No Child Left Behind has required is that every state set a mark that by 2015, I believed, 100 percent of your children on your standardized tests in your state are at mastery. The AYP measures how many people are - how many students are proficient and advanced. Each year, there's a mark that you have to get to. In the English language arts, we've tripled the requirement in AYP. And then in math, we have tripled it as well, to where it's three times higher than where we're supposed to be. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How did you get there? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): We do a weekly assessment. Every Friday, we assess. And our kids are responsible for knowing their scores. So what we do is, before they come on the playground, what you get today? And they'll tell you. I got a 75. That's a C. I have five more points before I get a B. I'm going to try and get five more points. That's kindergarten through fifth grade. They all know. The assessment is seen as a tool to get to college. We talk about college. Every classroom is named after a college. Everything is seen as where do you want to go in life. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you're essentially creating a lot of the same behaviors that you would find at an elite prep school, but within a public elementary school. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Exactly. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Let's talk about politics for a second. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Okay. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: No Child Left Behind. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Why is it so problematic to so many educators? A lot of educators who I've talked to say this constant testing, teaching to the test is destroying the schools. You seem to be focus very much on assessment. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Mm-hmm. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Is that a contradiction with the idea that you should be teaching for learning and not just teaching to the test? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Well, in terms of the Friday assessments, really, the way we sell it to the kids and to the teachers is I want to make sure as a teacher that I'm doing a good job, that you're getting it. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): So it's not only an assessment of how you're doing as a student, but it's an assessment of how I'm doing as a teacher. And I think it's very much teaching. I don't think that when we're assessing on Fridays that we're not teaching. And I don't think that you're teaching to the test. You're teaching to California State standards, which are assessed formally at the end of the year. I'd completely disagree with saying that it's ruining schools. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): I think that it's focusing schools, because I think it's time for schools to get really honest about what we want to do with our children and what we expect of our children. And everybody has to be held accountable to that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So if you had to create a tiny little playbook for a new principal who is stepping into shoes like the shoes that you stepped into six years ago… Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Mm-hmm. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: …just like a one-page go-for-it note. What would that playbook be? Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Love your kids, first and foremost. If you love your kids and you put that first, you will always do the right thing. That's what my mom always said to me. Secondly, I would say have some type of faith. You're going to have to have something to keep you grounded. And then thirdly, be a good teacher before you become a principal. Have the results yourself before you ask others to have the results. And then take no excuses and make sure that you hold yourself and everybody else accountable. And the last piece is you're going to have to work really, really hard. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Principal Solomon Davis, thank you so much for joining us. Ms. MIKARA SOLOMON DAVIS (Principal, Ralph Bunche Elementary School): Thank you for having me. It was my pleasure. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Principal Mikara Solomon Davis is currently on maternity leave from Ralph Bunche Elementary School near Compton, California. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's our show for today, and thanks for sharing your time with us. As always, if you'd like to comment on any of the topics, you can call us at 202-408-3330. Or you could e-mail us, just log on to npr.org. To listen to the show, you could also visit npr.org because we are a one-stop shop. NEWS & NOTES was created by NPR News and the African-American Public Radio Consortium. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya. This is NEWS & NOTES.

Principal Mikara Solomon Davis helped turn the Los Angeles-area Bunche Elementary, one of California's lowest-performing schools, into one of the state's best. Farai Chideya talks with Solomon Davis about her plan that boosted test scores among Bunche's low-income, mostly black and Latino students, and how she has taught them to aim for academic excellence.

Schulleiterin Mikara Solomon Davis hat die Bunche-Grundschule in Los Angeles, eine der leistungsschwächsten Schulen Kaliforniens, in eine der besten Schulen des Bundesstaates verwandelt. Farai Chideya spricht mit Solomon Davis über ihren Plan, mit dem die Testergebnisse bei den einkommensschwachen Menschen verbessert wurden, vor allem Schwarzen und Latino-Schülern, und darüber, wie sie ihnen beigebracht hat, nach akademischen Spitzenleistungen zu streben.

校长米卡拉·所罗门·戴维斯帮助洛杉矶地区的邦奇小学从加州最末流学校变身加州最优秀学府。法莱·奇德亚和所罗门·戴维斯就其计划进行了讨论，该计划提高了邦奇低收入学生（主要是黑人和拉丁裔学生）的考试成绩。此外，他们还谈到了戴维斯校长怎样教导这些学生以卓越学术为目标。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: By now, you've probably heard of the dustup following Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel prize-winning British scientist. Hunt volunteered some controversial comments at a conference last week about women. He said, quote, "You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry". The 72-year-old biochemist was roundly criticized for his remarks, and he ended up resigning his honorary university post in London. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK, we know the subject of sexism and gender bias in science isn't funny. The field has struggled mightily with those issues, but, you know what is hilarious? The surprisingly light-hearted reaction from the female scientific community. Nope, they didn't cry. Instead, they post selfies from their work in the lab and in the field, often in giant hazmat suits or facemasks with the hashtag #distractinglysexy. And they posted old photos of female scientists like Marie Curie and Fausto Sterling. And by Thursday, #distractinglysexy exploded with more than 10,000 tweets in just a couple of hours. Of course, everyone has their favorites, but here are a few of mine. A photo of wildlife biologist Sarah Durant crouched in the grass with the caption (reading) nothing like a sample tube full of cheetah poop to make you #distractinglysexy. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: An ecologist named Jennifer Pannell captioned a photo of herself outside, quote, "In the field because I'm too #distractinglysexy for the lab. Took ages to find a pic where I'm not crying." RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And an archival photo of a famous British chemist titled Rosalind Franklin was so #distractinglysexy the boys forgot to credit her with helping discover the structure of DNA. Kudos internet. Sometimes it's just better to fight fire with humor in a hazmat suit.

After the sexist comments of Nobel Prize-winning British scientist Tim Hunt went viral, female scientists staged a counterblow on social media.

Nachdem die sexistischen Kommentare des britischen Nobelpreisträgers Tim Hunt viral wurden, inszenierten Wissenschaftlerinnen in den sozialen Medien einen Gegenschlag.

诺贝尔奖得主英国科学家蒂姆·亨特的性别歧视言论在网络上疯传后，女科学家们在社交媒体上上演了一场“反击战”。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now, a story about social change, science and quite possibly serious academic fraud. Back in December, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, Science magazine, published a groundbreaking political science study. In the study, same-sex marriage activists went door-to-door to have simple, polite conversations with voters who opposed gay marriage. The chats were like this one between an activist and a widower who started out firmly against a marriage. But by the end of the conversation, he had changed his mind. UNIDENTIFIED CANVASSER: So you know this issue is going to come up for a vote again in the future. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I would vote for it this time. UNIDENTIFIED CANVASSER: Vote in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry? Why does that feel right to you? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Well, how would I say it? Let's see. I would hope that they would find the happiness that I had with mine. UNIDENTIFIED CANVASSER: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If you could have that kind of relationship with your partner, irrelevant of their sex, I would say you're a very lucky person because I know I had it. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The interviewees were supposedly surveyed about their opinions before and after these conversations. And many of their opinions did change, and they maintained that change a year later. The media, public radio included, took notice. The tape you just heard was from This American Life, which aired a segment on the study's finding. The research was also written up in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the list goes on. But this past week, the whole thing crumbled. One of the study's authors asked to have it retracted from the journal Science. DONALD GREEN: My name is Donald Green. I'm a professor of political science at Columbia University. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Other researchers told Green they had found red flags in his study. Green says he came to believe his co-author, a grad student at UCLA named Michael LaCour, had faked the surveys. And that's critical because the surveys were the basis for the entire study. They proved that the gay marriage activists were indeed changing minds. Donald Green says even though his co-author LaCour was in charge of gathering the data, he himself bears some of the responsibility. DONALD GREEN: Quite a bit of blame I think. You know, I should have been the one to have noticed this. And looking back on it, I wasn't suspicious enough. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: We reached out to LaCour, who said he is still gathering evidence before giving any response. Meanwhile, many of the news organizations that reported on the original study have posted their own responses and retractions. Ivan Oransky runs a website called Retraction Watch, which monitors scientific misconduct. He says retractions are rare. IVAN ORANSKY: It's about .02 percent. I mean, it's tiny. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Still, Oransky says the desire to be published in a big name journal can sometimes lead people to fudge the data. IVAN ORANSKY: In order to get into those journals, you need to come up with something that isn't just slightly newer or, you know, incrementally more interesting than the last thing that was published. And so people are - perhaps they have more of an incentive to cut corners and maybe even commit fraud. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And he says even the peer review process isn't fool proof. IVAN ORANSKY: It's something that academic researchers due for free. They're often under tremendous pressure to do it quickly because journals don't want to hold up publication. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Donald Green, the co-author of the controversial study, says this experience has changed how he will do research in the future. DONALD GREEN: We're probably going to have to institute a new set of procedures whereby nobody gathers primary data alone. They always do it in teams. It's going to make things harder and more expensive. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But he says maybe that's the cost of getting it right.

A much-publicized study suggesting door-to-door canvassing could change opinions about same-sex marriage has been discredited. The co-author of the study has asked Science to retract its article.

Eine vielbeachtete Studie, die darauf hindeutet, dass die Tür-zu-Tür-Werbung die Meinungen über die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe ändern könnte, wurde in Misskredit gebracht. Der Co-Autor der Studie hat Natur-, Sozial- und Formalwissenschaft (Science) gebeten, seinen Artikel zurückzuziehen.

一项广为宣传的研究表明，上门游说可能会改变人们对同性婚姻的看法。不过，该项研究已经被否定。该研究的合著者已要求《科学》杂志撤回其文章。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: At age 40, Kendrick Meek is one of the youngest members of Congress. But the Florida Democrat has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to co-chair her 30-Something working group. Yeah, baby, 40 is the new 30-something. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Anyway, Democrats hope Meek can help them reach young Americans. I recently spoke with Meek as part of our series on power players in the Congressional Black Caucus. Is he up to reaching disaffected young Americans, he told me yes. And he's hitting the road to find them. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): We'll be out throughout the country, listening to young people. We're blogging. We're Web casting, we're YouTubing. We're doing all the things that we have to do to reach out to them. I believe that 18 year olds and 20-somethings and 30-somethings want to be heard. They want to hear action, and we're going to give it to him. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Why do you think that this 30-something working group can do that older members of Congress can't do? Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): Well, A, many of us - well, not including me - but many of us are still paying student loans back. We know what it means to be in credit card debt. Just like in Washington we listen to seniors on Medicare's Prescription Drug Part D program, we have to listen to young people as it relates to the environment, global warming mainly, interest rates, an opportunity to buy homes. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): A number of economic issues that young people are facing now we're going to try to address, and the 30-Something working group, we're going to put a special focus on it. We have the support of incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi to continue to give young people in America a voice in the Congress. And I think action will speak louder than words. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now you've also got another hat, incoming chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. What's your top priority leading that foundation, of course linked with the Congressional Black Caucus? And also, do you believe that the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation should be more active in pushing a new version of the civil rights agenda? Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): Well, we've already started with a new version of the civil rights agenda by renewing the Voting Rights Act, being a part of that dialogue that took place in the 109th Congress. The new civil rights is making sure that young people and people of color have not only access to capital, but to be a part of trading that capital that young people need to be able to access. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): Also, one of the major initiatives that we're pushing now is to have more in terms of color on Capitol Hill, and also provide more scholarships to allow people of color in the 43 districts that we represent, including the entire state of Illinois, to have access to college through scholarship opportunities to help them with their tuition. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): So we look forward to not only we're building this generation but the next generation now, the 110th Congress. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What kind of legacy do you want to pass on in terms of giving something to younger people who might look up to you from your district, telling them that they have a chance? And let me fold that into your other position. You have so many hats. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You're joining the Ways and Means Committee at the House, and that deals with issues of poverty among others. What do you hope to pass on as a legacy in terms of dealing with some of the issues that must be tough in your district and other districts? Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): Well, A, people look for good government. And that's what we want to give them. I think what's also important to look at the work of the Ways and Means Committee has to do. A, we have to be able to allow the federal government negotiate with drug companies to bring prices down; not to make the program a bad program for those that are involved, but to improve it. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): And I don't think that's something that's dealing with just seniors. I think a number of 30 and 40-somethings, and some 20-somethings, are using prescription drugs daily for whatever the situation may be with their personal health. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): I think it's also important for us to look at the tax code here in the United States as it relates to those that are attending college, and even those parents that are paying for college - I think the next generation or this present generation because I've lived in a generation that folks are always talking about the next generation, and I'm saying what about the right here and the right now. I'm looking at ways that we can incentivize young families to do the things they need to do to be able to make sure that their children or grandchildren have better opportunities than what they've had. So this is more of an open book outside of the 100-hour agenda. We have this war in Iraq that we have to deal with. We have a number of issues that are going to be on the plate. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): The country right now is not in a great position as it relates to finances or as it relates to good government. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Congressman, specifically on Iraq, you served on a House Armed Services Committee. You've been outspoken in your support of the troops. The president is ready to break what the Iraq Study Group in order a troop surge or a temporary increase, not a withdrawal. Do you agree with his position? Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): At this present time I don't. I haven't had an opportunity to read the president's position in print. From what I've seen and heard, I think it's out of step with what the House, I know Armed Services Committee has been talking about, even under Republican control. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): And I think it's out of step with the people of the United States. Everyone else is pulling out and taking the training wheels off the Iraqi government and saying that you have to stand for yourself. We're the only country that are saying that we need to send more troops. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): And I think that the Congress will play a very strong role in that. I know that the Senate has called a hearing with the incoming secretary of defense, and I believe that will be eye opening and fruitful for the entire country or for the world. I look forward to the future conversation. I look forward to being a part of not just conversation and not just hissing from Congress, but action from Congress. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Congressman Meek, thanks so much for joining us. Representative KENDRICK MEEK (Democrat, Florida): Thank you for having me. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: U.S. Congressman Kendrick Meek represents Florida's 17th district. He is co-chair of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 30-Something working group and a new member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

As part of a series on power players in the Congressional Black Caucus, Farai Chideya talks with U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL). Meek is co-chair of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Thirty Something Working Group (though Meek is 40) and a new member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Im Rahmen einer Serie über die einflussreichen Mitglieder im Congressional Black Caucus spricht Farai Chideya mit dem US-Abgeordneten Kendrick Meek (D-FL). Meek ist Co-Vorsitzender der Thirty Something Working Group der Sprecherin des Repräsentantenhauses, Nancy Pelosi (obwohl Meek 40 Jahre alt ist) und ein neues Mitglied des Ways and Means Committee des Repräsentantenhauses.

作为聚焦国会黑人核心小组中权力人物系列节目的一部分，法莱·奇德亚采访了美国众议员肯德里克·米克（佛罗里达州民主党）。米克是众议院议长南希·佩洛西的30多岁工作组的联合主席（尽管米克40岁），也是众议院筹款委员会的新成员。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Pittsburghers of all faiths gathered to remember the dead last night at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall. The first speaker was Jeff Finkelstein, president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. JEFF FINKELSTEIN: The traditional Jewish way to respond to news about the death of an individual is to say blessed is the judge of truth or, in Hebrew, baruch dayan ha-emet. And when 11 people are slaughtered, we say it 11 times. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. Baruch dayan ha-emet. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Thousands of people attended the vigil. They filled the hall. Crowds outside listened on speakers. Faith leaders from across the region spoke, including Liddy Barlow, pastor for the United Church of Christ. LIDDY BARLOW: First, to the Jewish community, when violence came to Christian sanctuaries at Mother Emanuel in Charleston, at Sutherland Springs in Texas, you stood with us. And today, with our whole hearts, we stand with you. We will cry with you. We will resist anti-Semitism and all hatred with you. And we will work with you to end violence. We will do that because you are our neighbors but more because you are our friends and, still more, because you are our family. We love you, and we are so sorry. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's Pastor Liddy Barlow speaking last night at an interfaith vigil in Pittsburgh.

On Sunday, thousands in Pittsburgh came out to an interfaith gathering to remember those who were killed by a gunman at a synagogue on Saturday.

Am Sonntag kamen Tausende in Pittsburgh zu einer interreligiösen Versammlung, um derer zu gedenken, die am Samstag in einer Synagoge von einem bewaffneten Mann getötet wurden.

周日，匹兹堡数千人参加跨宗教集会，纪念周六在犹太教堂被持枪歹徒杀害的人。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For all the tensions of race in America, African-Americans have been used for decades to market products to both black and white consumers. Today, the people who were the face of the good life are entrepreneurs, like Barbara B. Smith. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: B. Smith rose to fame in the 1970s when she became the first African-American model to grace the cover of “Mademoiselle” magazine. Later, she opened several upscale B. Smith restaurants and wrote two books on entertaining. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Some folks call her the black Martha Stewart. Recently, she became the face of Betty Crocker's cornbread mix. The change has increased sales of the corn muffin mix more than 20 percent, but it also raised some eyebrows. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: After all, well before using black celebrities to market their wares, American companies used characters like Aunt Jemima on their packaging. Earlier, I spoke with B. Smith about whether there's any comparison. But first, she describes her transition from modeling to entrepreneur. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Ms. BARBARA B. SMITH (Entrepreneur): I always treated myself as a business when I was a model. At the time, if I was making $60 an hour, if I was five minutes late, I made $55 an hour. And we didn't talk about the word branding then, but I knew that I was my own business and that, you know, I had to grow my business and I segued from the modeling business into the food business. Now people say food and modeling don't go well together. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But I grew up in Western Pennsylvania and I learned to cook with my family, and food was always important in my life. And when I came to New York, I always entertained the other models, so it was a natural progression. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There are very few people who can sustain so many different types of brands. There's Oprah who's got, you know, television magazine, radio. And of course there's Martha Stewart who is operating in the world of home and home design. What do you feel when people compare you to Martha Stewart? Ms. SMITH: Well, first of all, I think that if Martha Stewart and Oprah had a daughter, it would be B. Smith. Ms. SMITH: You know, the comparison to Martha Stewart allows people to understand what I do. Martha has done a great job of creating and helping people to understand the importance of, you know, being creative in your home, whether it's cooking, whether it's gardening, whether it's decorating. And we have definitely different audiences, I think. And we share some audience. Ms. SMITH: There is crossover, so the three of us really are about bringing information to people. You know, teaching people to be more creative. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Clearly, other companies want to make use of how you have structured your life and put yourself out in the world. So General Mills, maker of the Betty Crocker corn muffin mix, said that they wanted to appeal more to African-Americans. They specifically said, quote, “they wanted to target African-American consumers through packaging.” What did you think when they approached you and how did you move in to that decision? Ms. SMITH: Well, you know, my background, having been a model and a spokesperson, I deal with products that I think are fit to my brand. And people see me on television with my iron skillet, you know, with cornbread long before Betty Crocker and General Mills came to me. Ms. SMITH: And I thought it was a natural fit. Of course, the product really speaks for itself. It's a great product. It's very affordable. In the African-American community, you know, we probably over-index on eating cornbread. Ms. SMITH: No, I think it was a great idea. I think that it was brilliant of them to come to me. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, it's certainly been working. I know that their sales have gone up at 20-plus percent. Did you ever worry, though, that, you know, decades ago images of black women were used to sell everything from soap to pancakes. Were you worried about comparisons to the past? Ms. SMITH: Not at all. As a matter of fact, I don't think there are any comparisons to the past. What I mean, people know and respect what I do. I'm in the food business. I think that it was a really good fit. And there is no comparison. I mean, years ago when you saw those images on products of Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima and other derogatory characters that you would see. Ms. SMITH: Today, it's totally different. I mean, you know, you see us in commercials. I just don't think that anybody ever thinks twice about it. Although, I do think that people who understand me and understand the brand and the quality that I stand for, when they see me endorsing a product, I think they want to try it because they feel comfortable with me. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, you've mentioned audience before. Who is a B. Smith woman or a B. Smith man who really aspires to some of the things that you put out there? Ms. SMITH: I've always had crossover appeal. You know, people come into my restaurant. Men, women, you know, young people, older people, couples that have, you know, met in my restaurant, of all colors and all nationalities. What B. Smith's brand is about is bringing people together. Ms. SMITH: And I, you know, was raised in Western Pennsylvania. It was a very mixed community. I came to New York. New York to me is the center of the universe and we're such a melting pot. So I have a huge following across, you know, all nationalities. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What other ambitions do you have, because it seems as if whatever you're touching you manage to make a wonderful effort out of it? Ms. SMITH: Well, I like the way you said that, a wonderful effort. Because everything that I have touched has not turned to gold. And I work very hard. I try to, you know, map out that path as much as you can and go in directions that I think really are fit to my brand and to my personality. So I see more of what I'm doing, more of being involved with home products. I also see in the future radio and, you know, sharing even more of what I do with the general public. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Thanks for speaking with us. Ms. SMITH: Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That was lifestyle expert Barbara B. Smith. She joined us from our New York bureau.

Model, author, restaurateur and lifestyle expert Barbara "B." Smith recently became the face of Betty Crocker's cornbread mix. But for some, the move has revived old ideas about racial nostalgia. B. Smith talks with Farai Chideya about the comparison to Aunt Jemima and her career.

Model, Autorin, Gastronomin und Lifestyle-Expertin Barbara \"B.\" Smith wurde vor kurzem das Gesicht von Betty Crockers Maisbrot-Mischung. Aber einige hat der Umzug an die alten Vorstellungen von Rassennostalgie erinnert. B. Smith spricht mit Farai Chideya über den Vergleich mit Tante Jemima und ihrer Karriere.

作为模特、作家、餐厅老板兼生活专家的芭芭拉·B·史密斯最近担任了贝蒂·克罗克玉米面包店的代言人。但对一部分人来说，这一举动重新唤起了他们对自己种族的怀念。B·史密斯与法莱·奇德亚谈及杰迈玛阿姨和她的工作，并与之做了对比。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: The movie “Dreamgirls” is a smash hit at the box office and the film has already earned four Golden Globe nominations. But commentator Erin Aubrey Kaplan wonders did the movie robbed one of its stars of a very important asset? ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: What's happened to Beyonce? OK, I know this doesn't rank up there with other urging questions of our time. I bring up Beyonce because this particular erosion happens faster than WMDs or global warming, and because voicing a concern just might affect the course of disaster. There's time. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But I really bring this up because the loss of the famous booyah Beyonce butt hit so close to home. I don't have it exactly, but I have a version. It's a common anatomical feature of black women and it tends to be part of a whole ensemble of features that includes smallish waists and largish thighs. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But a megastar like Beyonce put the typical in the spotlight, and suddenly that build and its amenities were everywhere, splashed across magazine spreads, accented in videos. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: In a confused world of multi-cultural soul singers like Christina Aguilera and Mariah, Beyonce was unapologetically and unmistakably black. Straining more than a bit beneath those glittery evening gowns and designer jeans, her butt was confrontational in the best way and it reassured the rest of us that a figure like that still had a shot at celebrityhood. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: Sure, magazines like “Vogue” worried a lot at Beyonce's hips - the polite society term for butt - and that the fact that the diva seemed to indulge in fried chicken salads a tad more often than she should. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But I figure Beyonce was used to it by now. But she was grounded firmly enough in the aesthetics of hip-hop to not worry much about Hollywood. Yeah, I know that Missy Elliot lost weight and that Li'l Kim got surgery and that Janet Jackson, well, the Jacksons are a sight unto themselves. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But Beyonce was different. She wasn't O' natural bombshell from the beginning whose other dalliances with artifice - blonde hair, extensions - were routine and couldn't begin to neutralize her core appeal as a bodacious black woman with a body and a booty to match. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: Now, well, there's not as much hope, literally, because there's not as much Beyonce. In preparation for her role as the lead (unintelligible) in “Dreamgirls,” Beyonce whittled herself down in the last year to end up looking like Halle Berry. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: Now, there's nothing wrong with Halle Berry. She's lovely and all that, and she happens to be petite. But she also happens to be part of a long tradition of black women that Hollywood and America in general finds acceptable - light skin, well spoken, slender, beautiful but not lusty; think Lena Horn. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But we need more diversity. We need light-skinned black women who are not exactly slender. We need black women of all skin shades who have body types and sensibilities that fall somewhere along that long spectrum in between Halle Berry and Mo'nique. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: But now Beyonce has done a Jennifer Lopez. Remember her butt? It was on full display in “Selina,” the bio-pick movie that starred Lopez well before she became J-Lo. In fact, the Puerto Rican Lopez got the role partly because she had the booyah butt that the Mexican-born Selena was famous for. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: Alas, as Jennifer got more famous, she looked less and less ethnic and her butt shrunk accordingly. Beyonce is at a different place in her career, but I'm worried. In her diminished state she looks uncertain, a little anxious. That mix of mystery and wide openness that gives so many other black women their appeal, that made the megastar Beyonce one of us, is no longer evident. She's gone for being a go girl to a dream girl. ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN: I hope it's temporary. I'm all for dreams, but when it comes to backside curves, I'm much more inspired by the real world. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Erin Aubrey Kaplan is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Dreamgirls is a hit at the box office, but commentator Erin Aubrey Kaplan wonders whether the movie robbed Beyonce of a very important asset?

Dreamgirls ist ein Hit an den Kinokassen, aber die Kommentatorin Erin Aubrey Kaplan fragt sich, ob der Film Beyonce eines sehr wichtigen Vermögens beraubt hat?

《追梦女郎》票房火爆，但评论家艾琳·奥布里·卡普兰怀疑这部电影是否剥夺了碧昂斯一项非常重要的资产?

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. MARTHA AND THE VANDELLAS: (Singing) Whenever I'm with you, something inside starts burning, and I fill with desire. Could it be a devil in me, or is this way that I'm supposed to be? It's like a heat wave burning in my heart. I can't keep from crying. It's tearing me apart. NEAL CONAN, host: By 1963, the vast majority of American kids could hear exactly that much of "Heatwave" and identify the record label. Just four years after Barry Gordy established Motown, the Detroit studio had transformed American music: Martha and the Vandellas, the Supremes, the Temptations, Marvin Gaye, the Four Tops, Junior Walker, Stevie Wonder, the list goes on and on and on. NEAL CONAN, host: Tomorrow night, in honor of Black History Month, the White House holds a gala to celebrate music that greatly influenced American culture. Martha Reeves will join us in just a moment. NEAL CONAN, host: How do you gauge Motown's influence on America? What was your Motown moment? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: And Martha Reeves joins us today from member station WDET in Detroit. Nice to have you with us today. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): It's a pleasure to be here. NEAL CONAN, host: And it must be quite an honor for Motown to be recognized that way at the White House. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I'm so excited. I hope I can contain myself during this interview. What a thrill. NEAL CONAN, host: What was the first time you remember being aware of Motown Records? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): When I was appearing at the 20 Grand. I had won an amateur contest, and my reward was three nights during the happy hour, which is like between 7:00 and 11:00, at a place called the 20 Grand, which is no longer in existence here in Detroit. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): But on my last night, Sunday night, a gentleman from Hitsville, USA -that's how he represented himself - a man named William Stevenson(ph) gave me a card and said: You have talent, come to Hitsville, USA. And I took the card backstage, and I recognized a few names on there because I had heard about Mary Wells. I had heard about Marv Johnson. I had heard about Eddie Holland, and the Contours were not yet on the label yet, but I was hoping that I could meet the Miracles because they were talking about this guy Smokey, who had a wife in the group, Claudette. But all of these names were on the back of that card, and I was excited to go. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): So I went the next morning. Instead of taking the card and making an appointment, I showed up. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And to everybody's surprise, William Stevenson, better known as Mickey, said: What are you doing here? And I said: I don't - didn't you give me a card last night and say come here? But I didn't know protocol. I didn't know you were supposed to call for an audition. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And they held auditions every third Thursday. So here I was on the first of the month. I'm going: Well, what should I do? He said: Answer the phone. I'll be right back. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): This is my first knowledge of Motown Records. This is my first introduction. And I stayed all day. At the end of the day, I was asked to come back, and this continued until I finally did a demonstration record, got the attention of Barry Gordy, the owner, and had a record released with the Delphis, who were named after - we changed the name from Delphis to Vandellas. NEAL CONAN, host: That's an interesting story. There is also - there were so many people. You mentioned a few of those names that you were interested in meeting. You got to meet all of them. You got to work with most of them. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Well, as an A&R secretary, which I became for nine months, I gave that job to three girls from secretarial college, boarded a bus with eight other acts and a 12-piece band, the Choker Campbell Band. And Stevie Wonder was little at the time. We don't call him little anymore. NEAL CONAN, host: No, I don't think so. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): But Stevie Wonder was on that tour as well. So it was quite a 94 one-night adventure. NEAL CONAN, host: And what was it like to - there were so many distinctive voices and so many distinctive talents there, yet there was a sameness to the sound that was instantly identifiable. What do you think was the common denominator? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): The magic of the Motown sound was the musicians who recorded the music never traveled with me or any of the other acts that I know of. Well, on special occasions they would appear. Like the Funk Brothers did go to England with us. But they were referred to as the Funk Brothers, and they recorded for everybody. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And they had the unique talent of playing different for each act. You knew the voices. You could tell the intros of the songs and know who exactly that it was. And that's one thing that I take pride in, being with a company who had not only lyrics that were - you could sing in church or in mixed company, you didn't have to send anybody out of the room to listen to the Motown sound. And we had stories that we told that could touch the heart, to change things, to make things better for everybody who listened. And that was the joy of being on the Motown sound, being with the Motown sound. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's introduce another voice into the conversation. Joining us now is Bob Santelli. He's here in Studio 3A. He's executive director of the Grammy Museum. He'll also be at the White House tomorrow, and he's leading students in a discussion about Motown's legacy. Nice to have you with us today too. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): Pleasure. NEAL CONAN, host: And she mentioned the Funk Brothers. It was also a genius of recording. Plugging the electric bass directly into the console made all those records sound - gave them a distinct sound. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I had the benefit of being one of the first recording artists, and the bass was an upright bass until they talked James Jameson(ph) into using the Fender. It was basically upright for (unintelligible) "These Memories," "Heatwave," "Love Makes Me Do Foolish Things." Quite a few of our first recording were done with an upright bass. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): You know, it's interesting because we refer to Motown as the Motown sound. And that term, sound, has been used a lot in popular music history: the San Francisco sound in the mid-'60s. There really wasn't a San Francisco sound. But there really was a Motown sound. And part of that reason was, as Martha says, you know, you had the same musicians there creating a common-denominator bottom, if you will, with James Jameson, Benny Benjamin(ph), Earl VanDyke(ph), others who gave the Motown sound a consistency and yet was very, very unique. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): So truly, when you talk about a Motown sound, there really was one. And yet on top of that there was a uniqueness as well. NEAL CONAN, host: And many different voices. As writers, yes, Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote a lot of the hits, but so did Smokey Robinson and other people too. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): Yes, Smokey certainly did. I mean, he was - in the early days, you know, some of the songs that he wrote - "Tears of A Clown," "Tracks of My Tears" and these are just such absolute standards, landmark songs. And it really helped Motown penetrate the pop charts in the early 1960s, something that, you know, black music hadn't done very consistently before that. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): But boy, when Motown hits, it was irresistible. You could not deny them a place in American music history in the early '60s. NEAL CONAN, host: Martha Reeves, I wanted to ask you: Was there a moment you began to realize that this company you were with was a lot more than Hitsville, USA, that it was contributing something unique to American culture? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): From the very first day of my arrival, I noticed that there was always a line, people wanting to be on the label, and people wanting to be touched or discovered by Barry Gordy. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): He alone can be credited for the continuity of the sound and his choice of musicians, his choice of releases, his choice of artist. He had a way of looking at you kind of like he could maybe shorten one of his eyes and kind of glare into your spirit and your soul. He kind of knew talented people. And he can be rewarded for having over 30 acts come out of one company and all become super-stardom status. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And it's a pleasure watching not only people like my cohorts perform the Motown sound, because we were trained for stage, but it's also great to listen to because all of the music was profound and recorded by jazz musicians. All the guys that I can name are members of the Jazz Hall of Fame. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Martha Reeves, of course Martha and the Vandellas. Also with us is Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum. We want to hear about your Motown moment. What do you think its contribution to American culture amounts to? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. We'll start with Eileen(ph), and Eileen's with us from San Antonio. EILEEN (Caller): Hi there. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. EILEEN (Caller): I know that I was growing up in the Bronx in the '60s, and I was telling your screener that my uncle was a priest. So at Christmas it was always a joke as to what Bill might pick out for the various kids and whatnot. EILEEN (Caller): And in '67, he gave me a portable record player and a stack of 45s from Motown, which number one, immediately told me he hadn't done the shopping, but that was okay. EILEEN (Caller): I was good with the music. And it just occurred to me while I'm on hold, that it's almost, like, you know, when you win the youth, civil rights was going at the time, when you win the youth, the fight is kind of over. And I think the music did a lot to do that. Maybe the fight's not over, but it certainly brought a lot of us into awareness, and I think that's what it meant to me. NEAL CONAN, host: Martha Reeves, a lot of those early hits were dance tunes, love songs, yet there was another message. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes, and I have to remind myself to mention the fact that Smokey Robinson was one of the first entertainers that I ever appeared with who actually stood on stage and ordered the guys that were standing at the edge of the stage with those sawed-off baseball bats not to hit another person if they got up and danced to our music in Montgomery, Alabama. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And it was a step forward that no one anticipated, but it was very much needed because we had a segregated audience. And when Smokey made that announcement, the guys did stand back, and the people in the audience were allowed to get up and dance when they felt like it, when their spirit hit them. And when the music ended, no one could remember where they were sitting. And the next couple of engagements, we didn't have segregated audiences. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): So I know not only that our music make you feel good, but we also had a message of equality. We had a message of actually enjoying music. And I don't think our music was designed for any particular people, any particular race or creed or color or age. It's just the sound of young America, and that's what was in our label, and that's what we take pride in. NEAL CONAN, host: Bob Santelli, is this overstating it? Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): No, not at all. As a matter of fact, when you think about the role that Motown played in the early 1960s, I've always looked at it as Berry Gordy presenting to America a great example of black artistic expression in the music, but also a sense of black capitalism and the opportunity to take the music, right from the very beginnings in the industry stage, and then give it to the rest of the people. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): You know, there weren't a whole lot black record company owners in 1960 or '61. And Berry was able to do this and do it very well. And the fact that, as Martha said, you know, this music was absolutely colorblind, that white kids listened to it, Latino kids listen to it, black kids listen to it, it was accessible and immediate and it spoke to all races in America is an achievement that, to this day, is admirable. NEAL CONAN, host: Eileen, do you still have those 45s? EILEEN (Caller): No. I wish I did. But that's okay. I still get to listen to them. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks for... EILEEN (Caller): And, you know, they're on the radio all the time. Thank God. God bless you all. NEAL CONAN, host: They are on the radio all the time. Thanks very much for the call. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's a tweet from Tom Godell. My Motown moment is non-musical. They issued an LP of baseball stories by retired umpire Red Jones - pure baseball gold. NEAL CONAN, host: That's one that alluded by normally encyclopedic interest in both Motown and baseball. In any case, we're talking about Motown and its legacy for American culture. Our guests - you just heard Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum. Also with us is Martha Reeves, of course, the lead singer of Martha and the Vandellas. If you'd like to join the conversation: 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, coming to you from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to John, and John's on the line from Des Moines. JOHN (Caller): Yes. Martha, it's an honor to speak with you. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Hi, John. JOHN (Caller): I would just like to touch on the social part of the whole soul music, which you can divide it up between the Memphis sound and the Detroit sound. But I remember as a teenager, with a six-transistor radio under my pillow all night long, listening to WLS in Chicago and KAAY in Little Rock and WHB in Kansas City. I could get those stations, and they played an awful lot of Motown music. And I - it just - it was so important in changing white people's attitude towards black people. And you were as important an ingredient in civil rights as Martin Luther King, Jr. was. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Thank you. JOHN (Caller): And I applaud you for that. It did work. It did count, and it certainly meant something. JOHN (Caller): But my Motown moment, I don't know if you remember this or not, but in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1972 or three, I saw a concert where you opened, then Stevie Wonder came on and then The Rolling Stones played. And that was one of the best concerts I ever saw in my life. And I remember you leading Stevie Wonder out to the microphone. And it was just an indelible moment in my memory, and I remember it to this day. Bless you. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Thank you so much. That was good to remember, and you brought fond memories back to me, too, because that was a part of my stage appearance, to always make sure that I had Stevie when I went onstage for finales or whenever he went on. And Clarence Paul was his music director and also the A&R assistant. And between the three of us, we had a real good relationship and a real good time getting Stevie onstage. And he - you know, and no one really wanted to follow him, and I'm glad that The Rolling Stones were able to... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): ...because he's a dynamite performer. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm glad the Rolling Stones had to, as opposed to somebody else. I wonder, Bob Santelli, the caller was going through a litany of radio stations. He could have added a dozen more that people heard this music on. Incredibly important that these groups' commercial success put them in the top 40 format, that I don't think people remember its prevalence in those days and its importance to the music industry and to America. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I got to commend the DJs, because some of them played our music in spite of what their program directors said to them. And on our very first album, we couldn't actually put our pictures, because if they had known they were black music or black singers, they might not have played them on some stations. So it took a while before we could actually appear on our covers. NEAL CONAN, host: Hmm. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): But we made such a big difference and such an impact because of the DJs, and I got to thank them forever. NEAL CONAN, host: Bob Santelli? Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): Yeah. You know, I remember back when it wasn't so much top 40, because a lot of the stations - and I grew up in New Jersey and New York - would have the top 10 countdown, you know? And it was top 10, and there were always, in the early '60s, Motown songs in it. NEAL CONAN, host: Motown and Beach Boys. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): That's right. And, you know, for, you know, a young kid growing up in that part of America at that time - Motown and, to a certain degree, The Beach Boys - were really the answer to British invasion. While we were just being swamped in '64 - in particular, Beatlemania - with The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Searchers... NEAL CONAN, host: Dave Clark Five. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): Dave Clark Five, all of whom paid homage to Motown and just loved that particular sound. The biggest things coming out of America at that time, aside from this rise of Bob Dylan on the outside, was Motown. And you could look to Motown as a - almost like a counterbalance to what the Brits were giving to us. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): And, you know, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas and songs like "Heat Wave" and "Dancing in the Street" are so iconic. And for me, the key to Motown was how great they sounded on car radios, because I, too, had a transistor that many people knows little - miniature transistor radios that kids don't know what they are today. But on the car radio, boy, did they sound good. And I often wondered if Motown actually recorded that music so that it would sound good on car radios. It's something I hope to ask Berry. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Martha Reeves of Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, and Bob Santelli of the Grammy Museum. NEAL CONAN, host: How do you gauge Motown's influence on America? What was your Motown moment? 800-989-8255. Drop us an email. The address is talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm Neal Conan. Here's Junior Walker. It's TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Right now, we're talking about the legacy of Motown. Our guests are Martha Reeves - a name you'll recognize, of course - from Martha and the Vandellas, and Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum. Both will be at the White House tomorrow for an event that honors Motown's legacy. The Motown sound in performance at the White House will later be broadcast on PBS. That's going to be on March the 1st. NEAL CONAN, host: How do you gauge Motown's influence on America? What was your Motown moment? Email is: talk@npr.org. Our phone number: 800-989-8255. We got this email from Cynthia in Eugene, Oregon: Wonderful memories. In the '60s, I lived in a convent boarding hall - boarding school. And the girls and nuns would line up in the hall and do "The Temptation Walk." We got this email from Cynthia in Eugene, Oregon: And this is from D.E. Stewart in New Jersey: Listening to Martha and the Vandellas' "Dancing in the Streets," blaring outside Brown Chapel, Selma in the evenings of the Selma-Montgomery March. We got this email from Cynthia in Eugene, Oregon: And Martha Reeves, where you aware that your music was having that kind of an effect? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Our music, Motown's music has had an effect on every movement and everything that happened from that moment it was discovered, from '59 on. It affected Detroit economically, because the first big record I heard from Motown was "Money," by Barrett Strong. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And we had a recession similar to what we're going through now. We all needed money. And everybody was singing it. You could hear it piped up and down every street. And we used to have street dances, where blocked the neighborhood off and everybody put their record players - and the term 45 cracks me up because a child asked me once, he said, you all had guns? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): He thought 45s were actually revolvers. But he didn't know what records were, either. But they put their record players, not woofers and tweeters, but record players on their front porches, and it we'd play and feed each other and just dance and have a good time. So when I heard Marvin Gaye's, Ivy Hunter, the William Stevenson's "Dancing in the Street," that's where my mind went straight to how we used to have a real good time with each other just with music, and how "Money" was a big record in our neighborhood. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Rick, and Rick's with us from Atlantic City. RICK (Caller): Oh, hi. Thanks for taking my call. Martha, you and I have met a couple of times. I'm on the radio over here in - between Atlantic City and Wildwood, if you recall being in Wildwood a couple of years ago. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Oh, yes. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I love Wildwood. We did a street party. It was wonderful. RICK (Caller): That's exactly right. And, you know, listening to the conversation and being on the - I just got off the air, as a matter of fact. And every day, when I get off the air, I immediately switch it to this program because, well, I've had enough of music for the day. RICK (Caller): But talking about Motown and what it meant to America - and it's a lot like what I do in the air every day. And if I have to go from a doo-wop '50s song or any kind of rock and roll song from, like, the early days of rock and roll, and if I have to move into, like, a '70s song or something like that, a Motown song is a great transition, because it really does transcend all of those other songs and all that kind of music. RICK (Caller): But also - and the same thing, Motown really transcended America. We were able to relate to music - black, white didn't matter anymore. All of a sudden, there was a sound that everybody could relate to. And it didn't matter if it was black music or white music. It wasn't that at all. It was just really good music that we go dance to and sing to, and it was just a good thing. And I really do think that Motown contributed not just to a wonderful thing in the music world, but to the civil rights movement that everybody started having - particularly white people, I think, started having a different idea about who black people were and what was going on at the time. So... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Rick... RICK (Caller): ...and I could tell you that Motown has brought a lot of joy to a lot of people, including me. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Rick, we... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Rick, you're one of the people that I thank for keeping us alive, because you play us, and thank you so much for that. NEAL CONAN, host: And we wish you the best of luck, so long as you stay off the air between 2:00 and 4:00 Eastern Time. RICK (Caller): Well, I'm off at 3:00 Eastern Time, but I'm with you. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we hope that last hour dies, Rick. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Oh, no, don't do that. RICK (Caller): By the way, Martha, congratulations on going on to the White House. That's wonderful. I think that's just terrific. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Thank you. I'm thrilled. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for the call, Rick. Appreciate it. RICK (Caller): Thank you. Thanks a lot. NEAL CONAN, host: Email from Julie in Fenton, Michigan: As a little girl, my mother and I would go to Hitsville to buy records for my parents' TV and record shop. I remember going into the stacks to choose 45s and hearing the din of the rehearsals in the basement while we loaded our box with 45s. It was quite a thrill picking out records in the busy house. I am so happy to share this memory today. NEAL CONAN, host: Do you remember that basement, Martha? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes, I do, and it was the first house music. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Ms. REEVES It was Berry Gordy's house. NEAL CONAN, host: It was Berry Gordy's house. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes, it was. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Eric: I'm 22 from Lansing, Michigan. I'm a musician who spent the last year playing abroad. When foreign musicians compliment me on my feel, I remember the debt I owe to Motown. My youngest memories are of listening to the oldies station in the car seat as a child for my whole life. These songs are timeless. Any young musicians, especially in the rhythm section, should really study these hits. Just studying the bass line to "Heard It Through the Grapevine" gave me so much. Motown music is the best. It makes me feel good, and it gives me pride to be from Michigan. NEAL CONAN, host: In regard to that, Martha, do you remember your first time you got a chance to tour in Europe? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes, I do. I was there before the Motown Review, before Dusty Springfield used her influence to get all of us there. But we toured with Georgie Fame when his hit record "I Say Yeh, Yeh" was riding the charts. And he allowed me to come over. I was - I didn't have the Vandellas. I had to go on my own. And I toured with Georgie Fame 40 one-nighters. It was just wonderful, the reception to our music. But when the Motown Review went over because of Dusty Springfield and the "Ready Steady Go!" special, we were so - we got the same reception that The Beatles got in New York. It was wonderful to make the exchange. Used to have to exchange artists. When an English act came to America, we'd have to send an American act to England. And when we arrived, there was -they stopped Heathrow Airport. They had flowers and banners from the Tamla Motown Appreciation Society. Thanks to Dave Godin, God rest his soul, we were very well-received. So I remember it very well. NEAL CONAN, host: Tamla. We always think of Motown, Bob Santelli. There were associated labels as well as Motown, the major one. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): That's right. And yet there was still a consistency to the sound. So back then you didn't pay attention so much to whether it was on Tamla or Gordy or Motown. But the fact of the matter is, again, that sound, that today, as one of our emailers said, you know, he learns from that. I think anyone who's a musician today who wants to understand American music and understand great American music needs to go back to those records. And the hope is, you know, with some of these programs we're doing at the Grammy Museum and other programs going on with music museums around the country, the idea is to get this music in the hands of young people so they can experience it because it's as accessible to them as it was when we were young, and to keep this music alive to the point where it's meaningful in people's lives like it was 40, 50 years ago. NEAL CONAN, host: And... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I had a thrill just recently in Baltimore, Maryland. We appeared for the veterans, and the theater was filled with veterans. And we sang a ballad and all of the audience sang. And they didn't cry, but they helped us a lot because we went to war with them. I was told by a lot of the veterans where they would put their Motown records after -they'd stand in line at the PX all day to get the first Motown releases. They'd put their records away in their foot lockers and come back sometimes after active duty, and their lockers would be invaded, and they would have taken - you know, which is not a good thing, but that's how much they loved our music and how we went through the war with them. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): We appeared a lot during the Vietnam War in Japan and other surrounding areas and knew a little bit - had a closer view of what our veterans actually go through, as far as wars are concerned, and we were actively involved. And not only that Robin Williams called our name out in "Good Morning, Vietnam" and played "Nowhere to Run," but we've had other songs in different movies, and we were a big part of the wars too. So I commend the veterans for keeping us alive too. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Mark: As a young teenager in the early '70s in Findlay, Ohio, I would do my early morning paper route while listening to CKLW out of Windsor, Ontario... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: ...on a small transistor radio. They played tons of Motown, and that's what got me through my paper route. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to Greg, and Greg is with us from Grand Rapids in Michigan. Greg, you're on the air. Go ahead, please. GREG (Caller): Hi. Ms. Reeves, I just wanted to thank - you were talking about the veterans. And I remember back in 1965, going to basic training and just being totally lost, just totally lost. And everybody wanted you to say something or do something or, you know, and make all these decisions. And you haven't had any sleep in 24 hours and you haven't... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): You're away from home. GREG (Caller): ...food and you're - yes, you're away from home. And we got back to the barracks that night, and somebody broke out a radio and turned on the radio - oh, "Dancing in the Street" came on. And it was like somebody turned on the lights, you know? I was - everybody started dancing. And it was total craziness. Everybody was singing at the top of their lungs. They thought we were going nuts. But it's the memories like that make Motown really special to all of us. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I have some of that same joy every time we perform. And we do about 32 weeks a year now. And every time we get to "Dancing in the Street," total chaos. I love it. People remember when it was actually the hit of the time. And it still has the tone of happiness and joy. So I still enjoy performing it and I look forward to it. We're on our way to Iowa right after Washington, D.C., so we'll have a good time in Iowa. GREG (Caller): Yeah, I hope so. Well, thank you very much. And God bless you. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): God bless you too. NEAL CONAN, host: Greg, thanks very much for the call. Appreciate it. We're talking with Martha Reeve, of course Martha and the Vandellas; and with Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming to you from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's another email. This one from Judy in Kansas City who grew up in Grand Rapids. In the '60s my fondest memory is in high school, hearing the boys harmonizing in the stairwell. One of those boys was Al Green. Thanks to Motown... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Al... NEAL CONAN, host: ...for bringing all types of people together. So Al Green, of course, on Hi label, not in the Motown label but - and... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And from Michigan. NEAL CONAN, host: ...and from Michigan, though... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes. NEAL CONAN, host: ...but Bob Santelli, yeah, people knew Motown, but sure, there was a Hi(ph) Records label style and of course (unintelligible) had its own special style too. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): That's right. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Don't forget (unintelligible)... Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): Oh, yeah. There are actually quite a bit. But, clearly, when people think of the '60s, they often talked about the early '60s and mid-'60s as being, quote, "owned by Motown." And of course the later '60s where (unintelligible) out of Memphis comes out, and the two complimented each other terrifically, different sounds. NEAL CONAN, host: You had Aretha from Detroit playing in Memphis - recording in Memphis. Mr. BOB SANTELLI (Executive Director, Grammy Museum): That's right. And then you have Muscle Shoals(ph) in Alabama. So there was really an explosion of great African-American music in this period that's really been unrivalled since. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Two big thrills two big thrills was to have our song put in the capsule for the Library of Congress, "Dancing in The Street" along with a couple of songs, Stevie Wonder's and Marvin Gaye's. And to be declared our own folklore by the Smithsonian Institute - those are two big thrills and two accomplishments that I'll always treasure. NEAL CONAN, host: John's on the line from Gross Pointe just outside of Detroit. JOHN (Caller): Yeah, hi. What an extraordinary opportunity. Hi, Martha. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Hi. JOHN (Caller): Hi. I was at the Motown Revue in 1966 on Woodward Avenue at the Fox Theater. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Fox Theater, wow. JOHN (Caller): And I was sitting in the front as you faced the stage. I was sitting in the lower, very close to the stage, second row. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Mm-hmm. JOHN (Caller): I think I was one of the few white people in the audience. And I'll tell you, it was - I couldn't believe what a - I can't remember the number of stars that were there, but all I remember mainly was Stevie Wonder. And he came out and they had - they had handlers, because he played so ferociously that they had to keeping pushing the drums underneath his beating sticks, if you recall. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yes. He played every instrument on that stage. JOHN (Caller): Yes, I know. And I just - I walked out of there that night - you know, Motown - I enjoyed the Beach Boys and the West Coast sound and the European sound. But Motown had something emotionally that was quite different and quite special and wonderful. But that night was just remarkable, that you could assemble that much talent on the stage. If you - do you remember David Whitehouse and the white group that was -that they were signed up by Motown? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): There's always been a white group on Motown. The Balladeers is what you're referring to... JOHN (Caller): Well, there was another one from Grosse Pointe that was just briefly on (unintelligible) that night... Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Rare Earth was also - Rare Earth was also on Motown. JOHN (Caller): Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, okay. I guess there were a couple - but anyway, I wanted to thank you very much for all the wonderful time, and Motown is just extraordinary. I still have all the LPs and much many of 45s. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): You forgot to remember that it was $2 show. JOHN (Caller): Is that all it was? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Two dollars admission. JOHN (Caller): Oh, my God. I had no idea. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Yeah. JOHN (Caller): That was tremendous and I - it was wonderful. Thanks so much for the good times. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much. JOHN (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Martha Reeves, did you feel betrayed when Barry Gordy decided to move Motown to Los Angeles? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): I was not betrayed. My contract was up. I was surprised because I had just had a son. And when I called to find out if I had any more assignments or when was my next session, which was usually the rule, I was told that they were moving and I had no idea. So surprised is more - a better description. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): But I do know why they had to move to Los Angeles, and it was all the better. The Motown sound was no longer being produced. They weren't using Funk Brothers anymore. The Commodores were the last act to record at Hitsville U.S.A. They were self-contained and so the sound wasn't being recorded anymore, the actually Motown way. NEAL CONAN, host: And what have we lost because of that? Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Well, there are lot of musicians who are genius, and they're sitting somewhere now, practicing on their instruments. And they're waiting for music to come back to live musicians as opposed to the technical - I call them noisy toys that are being used in recordings today. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): We sang good because - and had emotional input because of the musicians. The Funk Brothers loved us enough to distinguish one from the other. They - when they knew it was a song for me, they gave me a little extra soul, a little more punch, a little more of a bass line to sing to because there was an art that Holland-Dozier-Holland taught me to sing with the bass line. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): And it was just a big disappointment to know that these fine musicians are no longer being featured in our live recordings. However, I'm making music and I'm going to make sure that when I do, I will have the people who are still here in Detroit who remember how the Motown sound was produced. My latest album, "Home To You," has the Motown sound. NEAL CONAN, host: Martha Reeves, thanks very much for your time today. Congratulations on the event tomorrow at the White House. Have a great time. Ms. MARTHA REEVES (Lead Singer, Martha and the Vandellas): Thank you and God bless your hearts. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And also our thanks to Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum, who will also be at the White House tomorrow night. NEAL CONAN, host: Martha Reeves, among many others, will attend tomorrow's event. She joined us from member station WDET in Detroit, and Bob Santelli is here with us in Studio 3A. NEAL CONAN, host: We should note, tomorrow's performance will be taped by WETA and PBS. "The Motown Sound in Performance at the White House" premieres Tuesday, March 1st on PBS stations across the country. It's being produced by WETA. We thank them for their help reaching today's guests.

Fifty years ago, when black musicians had a difficult time breaking into a music business that was divided by race, Motown changed everything. Catchy dance tunes blending R&B, gospel, swing and pop from Berry Gordy's Detroit-based record company caught on nationwide. Martha Reeves, lead singer, Martha And The Vandellas Bob Santelli, executive director of the Grammy Museum

Vor fünfzig Jahren, als schwarze Musiker Schwierigkeiten hatten, in ein nach Rassen unterteiltes Musikgeschäft einzudringen, veränderte Motown alles. Eingängige Tanzmelodien aus R&B, Gospel, Swing und Pop von Berry Gordys Plattenfirma mit Sitz in Detroit setzten sich landesweit durch. Martha Reeves, Leadsängerin, Martha And The Vandellas\ Bob Santelli, Geschäftsführer des Grammy Museums

50年前，黑人音乐家们因种族问题而被一个音乐产业拒之门外时，摩城唱片改变了一切。这个由伯瑞·高迪创办的底特律唱片公司凭借朗朗上口的舞曲与R&B、福音、摇摆和流行乐的融合，在全国范围内引起轰动。玛莎·里夫斯，Martha & the Vandellas乐队主唱；鲍勃·桑特利，格莱美博物馆执行董事

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The Women's World Cup begins in Canada in a few weeks. All eyes will be on the U.S. team, which won the tournament twice in 1991 and in 1999. The team is ranked as the second best in the world according to FIFA. Megan Rapinoe is a midfielder for the Seattle Reign and is part of the U.S. national team. This will be her second World Cup. Megan joins us on the line from California. Hey, Megan, welcome to the show. MEGAN RAPINOE: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what's going on with the team at this point? I mean, do you start to taper down your practice tempo? MEGAN RAPINOE: Yes. Definitely. At least we'd hope so. Sometimes it doesn't feel like it, but they're like, trust us, we're tapering. And I'm like, I'm so tired. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: (Laughter). This is not a taper. MEGAN RAPINOE: Yeah. No, we are starting to kind of taper down. This is sort of our last kind of, like, you know, major preparation camp. We have a game at the end of this camp, and then we have one more game in New York. So this is kind of our last thing, and then we'll really be properly tapering off after that. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So I know you've talked a lot about this because it's been a big headline in the sports world. Some of our listeners might not have heard about this, though. There is a controversy surrounding this World Cup over the playing field, over the turf because this is going to be the first international tournament played entirely on artificial turf. You and others have been really critical about this. Why? How is that going to affect the games do you think? MEGAN RAPINOE: I just think that it's - and I don't really think this can be argued with. I just think it's a second-rate surface. And if FIFA is really serious about arguing that it wasn't a second-rate surface, well, then they would put other major championships or other major games around the world - not just men's games, but women's game as well - I think they would put those all on turf. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Does it say anything about the status of the women's sport? I mean, do you think this would be happening to the Men's World Cup? MEGAN RAPINOE: Well, no, it would never happen to the Men's World Cup. I think - I don't know if it says to the status of the women's game because I think we've come a long way. And I think a lot of people really respect it, and it's such a high level. But I think it says a lot about what FIFA thinks about the women's game. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's talk about the tournament, the games, the teams you're going to face. Who are you most worried about? MEGAN RAPINOE: You know, I think within our group, I think Nigeria's going to be a really interesting team to watch. They've done really well at the last couple youth championships. France has played extremely well all year. They gave us a hell of a game back in February. So I think that they are still there just with a lot more experience under their belt. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And lastly, can I just have you describe the U.S. game? You know, every team has kind of a style or adjectives people use to describe the game that the team plays. How is the U.S. women's team described? What's your game like? MEGAN RAPINOE: I think traditionally, we've always been very fit and fast and physical, and we have that sort of physical element that we can just outlast teams. And we have that grit and that mentality that we're never going to quit. But I think that we've added a lot of flare and creativity. And I don't think we get enough credit for how technical we are across-the-board. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Megan Rapinoe. She'll be competing with the U.S. national team at the Women's World Cup next month in Canada. Megan, good luck. MEGAN RAPINOE: Thank you very much. And thank you for having me on.

All eyes will be on the U.S. team, which won the cup in 1991 and 1999 and is ranked second in the world. NPR's Rachel Martin talks to team member Megan Rapinoe, a midfielder for the Seattle Reign.

Alle Augen werden auf das US-Team gerichtet sein, das 1991 und 1999 den Pokal gewann und weltweit auf Platz zwei liegt. Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit Teammitglied Megan Rapinoe, einer Mittelfeldspielerin der Seattle Reign.

所有的目光都集中在美国队身上，这支球队曾在1991年和1999年赢得世界杯，目前世界排名第二。NPR新闻的蕾切尔·马丁采访了球队成员、西雅图统治队的中场队员梅根·拉皮诺伊。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: When George Washington died, his wife, Martha, destroyed nearly all the correspondence between the two of them. Decades of intimate letters about married life and politics were lost to history. Now a new trove of letters and documents are being tracked down and published for the first time. They're not letters from the first president, but rather his wife, Martha Washington, the woman at his side through the revolution and the creation of the United States. Edward Lengel is the director of the Washington Papers Project at the University of Virginia. He joins us now from Charlottesville talk more about this. Welcome to the show. EDWARD LENGEL: Thank you for having me. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What do you think is the popular perception of this woman, our first lady - our first first lady, and do these letters that you have found thus far, do they reinforce that perception? EDWARD LENGEL: The popular perception really dates back from the 19th century in the images you see of Martha as an older lady in a knitting cap who looks very docile, who sort of sits in the corner and does her knitting while George Washington does all the important stuff. And that's just not an accurate representation of who she was. And I think her correspondence reflects that. She took a leading role in the management of the estate. She forged personal, political, even business connections with other women and men across the country. And she was - instead of being, like, a help-meet of George Washington, she was an active partner with him, even in places like the Revolutionary War. She was at camp with him for much of the war, not just patting him on the back and telling him, George, everything's going to be all right, but actually going out and working with other officers' wives to work for the welfare of the Army and camp. So I see her as a very vigorous, intelligent and active figure, and that really comes out through the letters. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean, it's my understanding they were apart for what ended up being, you know, if you count all the days, years and years. Did the letters shine any light on the intimate parts of their relationship, how close they were, the emotional component? EDWARD LENGEL: Yes. One of the most interesting discoveries that I made when we were starting to assemble these papers was a letter from her son, John Parke Custis, to George Washington on September 11, 1777, the day of the Battle of Brandywine. And I was looking over the letter, and on the back was a note that nobody had paid any attention to. And it was a note, it turned out, from Martha to George that had been missed. It was a very brief note, but she begins it, my love, I wrote to you by the last post about a silver cup that I bought, and it weighed 113 ounces, something to that effect. And to me, it's fascinating that here they are in their mid-40s, after they've been married almost 20 years. And, in a casual note, she calls him, my love. I think most of us who've been married for that length of time, you kind of dream that you still, if you give your husband or your wife a shopping list, you'll title it my love, I'd like you to pick this up at the grocery. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So why did she destroy all the letters that she exchanged with her husband, George Washington? EDWARD LENGEL: Well, she never said. But I like to think she spoke to herself as she was burning them, and she said, I've given George to the American people through most of our lives - as a general, as a president. And this is one part of my husband I'm going to keep for myself. This was something so personal and so intimate; she just didn't want to share it. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Edward Lengel, a professor and director of the Washington Papers Project at the University of Virginia. Thanks so much for talking with us about this. EDWARD LENGEL: Thank you.

Researchers are tracking down a new stash of letters from Martha Washington. Edward Lengel of The Washington Papers project at the University of Virginia tells NPR's Rachel Martin what's in the trove.

Forscher sind einem neuen Stapel von Briefen von Martha Washington auf der Spur. Edward Lengel vom Projekt der Washington Papers an der Universität von Virginia erzählt Rachel Martin von NPR, was sich in der Fundgrube befindet.

研究人员正在追踪玛莎·华盛顿藏匿信件的新地点。弗吉尼亚大学《华盛顿作品选》项目成员爱德华·兰格尔告诉美国国家公共广播电台的瑞秋·马丁信件中有哪些内容。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: After two weeks of unrest, Egypt remains in crisis. President Hosni Mubarak proposes to step down but only after he completes his term in office. Demonstrators demand his immediate departure. Some opposition leaders are talking with the government; others refuse. NEAL CONAN, host: Is the situation analogous to the people power that toppled Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines or to Tiananmen Square, where communist authorities suppressed pro-democracy protests, to Tehran 1979 or Tehran 2009? What makes one revolution succeed and another fail? Why do some achieve democratic goals while others become new kinds of tyrannies? NEAL CONAN, host: Later, Buzz Bissinger joins us on The Opinion Page to argue that violence makes pro football our most popular sport and why we need to keep it that way. NEAL CONAN, host: But first, historians, why do some revolutions fail while others succeed? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: And we begin with Simon Schama, University Professor of History at Columbia, who joins us from our bureau in New York. Nice to have you back on the program. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And I wonder: As you looked at history, and I know you're a particular expert on the French Revolution, what is it that makes one revolution succeed and another fail? Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Well, revolutions are acts of force. You know, it's when a lot of us celebrate the - it's an insurgency of people that you tend to forget, actually, the tough realities of what revolutions actually are over the centuries, since the French really invented the modern form in 1789. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Isn't it striking? How many times, Neal, have you heard the word carnival-like atmosphere, actually? Yeah, can we retire that please? Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Carnivals are not revolutions, actually, and the extraordinary thing which is sort of moving about Tahrir Square is the persistence and tenacity of all the people there. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): But weirdly, if you are too carnival-like, and you actually don't redirect and harness all that popular energy strategically against the institutions of power, you end up, actually, sitting in your own prison. It looks like a carnival, but actually, life goes on around you, and you become a kind of museum of failed revolutionary energy. NEAL CONAN, host: Can you give us an example of somewhere where that happened? Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Well, it happened a little bit actually in 1968 in Paris. I was -my only experience sort of really being gassed for liberty, really, along -inadvertently, I have to say, well, not entirely inadvertently. Well, let's not get into my dalliance with insurrection. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): But in 1968, do you remember the streets were full of a very sort of disparate coalition of the disaffected; led, of course, by students, by young people, then, as well and into challenging the authority of General de Gaulle's state in the Fifth Republic. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Into the mix came the trade unions, and for a while, workers and students, the kind of dream ideal of the revolutionary romance, actually looked as though it was going to bring the Fifth Republic down. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): At that point, General de Gaulle, not to give you a lengthy history, actually made contact with the head of the army, camped out in eastern France. But he could see already, as could his prime minister, George Pompidou, that really this group had nothing in common. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): And once the government, in effect, paid off the union side of the coalition of the angry, leaving - what was left was a kind of a theater, a spectacle. It wasn't even a carnival. And ultimately, most people in France actually got tired of what they thought of as student shenanigans. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): So, you know, Woody Allen at the end of "Annie Hall," a crucial source for us in thinking about this, says: Love is like a shark: Unless it moves forward, it dies. The same actually is true of revolutions. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Revolutions thrive on the symbolic and the strategic. They do need symbolic humiliations. That's why all the emphasis is on: We will not talk to the government, Suleiman, until Mubarak is so humiliated that he steps down altogether. But symbolic action won't work unless you have a very strong strategic sense of actually where you can actually jam up the works of the functioning of government. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): And in that sense, it was almost a sort of a bad sign for the revolution in Cairo, that the banks started opening again today, even though the stock exchange. NEAL CONAN, host: And in that sense, does not that strategic sense require organization, require leadership, which is one of the things that seems to be lacking in Tahrir Square? Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): That's exactly right. The European experience is, you know, sort of windbags for liberty, like me. Professors, students, professional writers had no trouble at all in constituting themselves as provisional revolutionary committees, committees for the dawn of democracy, committees against despotism. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Please, you know, the extraordinary thing is we're a bit committee-starved, a sentence I thought I'd never hear myself utter, in the case of Egypt. Even if it is going to be very provisional, what you don't want is simply a relatively, you know, sectarian group like the Muslim Brotherhood to constitute the only group that know actually what they want out of political and constitutional change. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, joining us now is Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center. He's an expert on democratization in the Middle East. He joins us from the BBC studios at Western House in London. Nice to have you with us today. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: And does history, in your opinion, give any guidance as to what may come to pass in Egypt? Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Yeah. Transitions usually work in a particular way. You have protestors on the ground that are pushing hard, that have, in some sense, uncompromising goals. As we see in Egypt, the protestors do not want to back down from the demand that Mubarak step down. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Once you have - so you have that, but in parallel, you have opposition elites, and they're usually not the people who are in the square protesting, and you have negotiated pacts that really happen in back-door deals between the elites and the regime forces. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): And I think that's what we're seeing now, where you have this, for example, this so-called committee of wise men that is negotiating, presumably, on behalf of the protestors, even though they haven't been authorized to do so. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): And we're seeing a proliferation of these committees of independents and opposition elites who are trying to get a piece of the pie. And again, we see a disconnect between the protestors in Tahrir Square and the people who are in the rooms negotiating with the regime. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): In other words, transitions are messy, they're uncertain, and oftentimes the protestors, or the opposition more generally, will have to make compromises they otherwise wouldn't make. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, the elites may make those compromises on their behalf without telling them, and thereby lies a danger. They may accept them; they may not. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Right, but protestors won't, at least some of them will not accept what comes out of these deals between both sides. And that's why they're likely to continue protesting, and that seems to be the plan right now, to continue having a presence in Tahrir Square really indefinitely. But that's not really a strategy. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): And that's been one of the big questions: What do the protestors want to achieve? How do they plan to achieve it? What are the mechanisms for change? It's one thing to bring hundreds of thousands onto the streets. It's another, to translate that into effective, tangible political action, and that seems to be lacking right now. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Can I come in for a second, Neal? NEAL CONAN, host: Simon Schama, go ahead, please. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): This is so interesting. You know, the European tradition, really because, you know, the history of the French Revolution is so imprinted, generation after generation. It was important for the Russians in 1917 and so on. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): There was already an education in exactly this problem, the problem being that those who constitute themselves as elite committees actually only have the cards they can play when they can mobilize popular anger out there in the streets. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): But the people who are, you know, who are actually themselves part of the demonstration of popular anger, can't do anything with it unless they do as the politician says. So they have to - what Egypt is going through, it seems to me from a great distance, is a kind of improvised education in that. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): At some point, and this is why, you know, sort of why the Suleiman and who knows what's happen in the army command, whether it's divided or united, are sitting there waiting and watching for the moment when the committee are - you know, can actually constitute, they can actually plug in to the energy they're getting from Tahrir Square. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): And the people in Tahrir Square understand it's pointless staying there unless they have a plan of action for the politicians to go forward. And that's a real kind of education on the spot, which is very difficult. It's fraught with danger, and if you divide those two forces, you'll find someone in the army will drive one of those tanks right through it. NEAL CONAN, host: And Shadi Hamid, that's the - the word army is an interesting one, and it connects a lot of revolutions. Which side does the army select? And is the army unified? And again, the idea that we in the United States have, the purposes of armies are to fight and win wars, not necessarily true in much of the world, where the purposes of armies are to keep the regime in power. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Well, yeah. What's interesting about the army in the Egyptian case is that in the initial days of the protest, there was a lot of euphoria about the military siding with the protestors and playing, essentially, the same role it played in Tunisia: an honorable role of protector of the people and refusing to shoot and all of that. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): I think we got the military a little bit wrong in Egypt in that respect. Yes, they did play an honorable role in terms of not shooting or refusing to shoot, but at the end of the day, they still are part of the regime structure, and that's what we're seeing the last few days. NEAL CONAN, host: They refused to protect the people against the pro-Mubarak protestors. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Exactly. So that's where we start to see - there was some confusion. Is the military with the protestors? Is it with the regime? At the end of the day, it benefits quite a bit from the status quo. Let's keep in mind that the new vice president is a senior military man, former army general. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): So that was part of a regime effort to consolidate control over the military, that appointment as well as the appointment of other security military types in the positions of interior minister and prime minister. So now the army seems to be saying: Well, protestors, we understand your demands, we see where you're coming from, but now Mubarak has made concessions, we're moving in a positive direction, it's now time for you to go back home, and let's get this country back on track and back to normal life. So now the army seems to be saying: And that seems to be where the military is right now. They don't seem to be very sympathetic to this idea of even more changes or radical change, and that's why they seem to be coalescing behind Omar Suleiman, the vice president, right now. So now the army seems to be saying: And that's where we really see the start of this so-called counter-revolution, which I'd say, began on Wednesday, after really the euphoria and jubilation of Tuesday night, where I think a lot of people felt Mubarak would fall any moment. So now the army seems to be saying: This is not a regime to be underestimated, and they have done a fairly impressive job in recent days of regaining some of their lost momentum. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center, with us from London; and with Simon Schama, University Professor at Columbia, an historian and an expert on the French Revolution. Why do some revolutions succeed, Tehran 1979? Why do some people-power movements utterly fail, Tiananmen? Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: In Egypt today, members of the Muslim Brotherhood threatened to pull out of talks with the government is President Mubarak does not resign. The group was one of the few willing to negotiate. President Mubarak offered some concessions but insists he will stay until his term ends in September. NEAL CONAN, host: Whether the protests lead to a more representative government remains to be seen, but history gives us some clues as to why some revolutions are more successful than others. NEAL CONAN, host: Historians, why do some revolutions fail? Why do others succeed? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Our guests are Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center; and historian Simon Schama, University Professor at Columbia in New York. And let's get a caller on the line. We'll start with Francine(ph), Francine with us from Denver. FRANCINE (Caller): Hi. Revolutions succeed just as an authoritarian regime begins to liberalize. In other words, those regimes that truly crack down put out any sparks immediately. For example, the first Iranian revolution happened when the shah was under pressure to give some civil rights and loosen up and not be so brutal. And that's the moment when a revolution can happen. Had the army been called out, and had they gone out on the Egyptian streets and cracked heads and have horrible injuries and murders, there would be no situation at the moment. I mean, that's a horrible thing to think, but it seems that that's the case. NEAL CONAN, host: Simon Schama, certainly in the Bolshevik case or the Russian case, the transitional government there provided some, what Francine would say, some civil liberties, some change and then gave way to the Bolsheviks. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Francine is exactly right. Before the March Revolution, actually, of course, there had been a great period of liberalization, the creation of a representative Duma, which was sort of an apprenticeship for jockeying among opposition groups in Russia. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): It's also the case, as Alexis de Tocqueville reminds us always in his eternal wisdom, that actually the old regime in France was not the kind of arthritic tyranny. It had illusions of its own liberalization. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): So she's absolutely right. The issue, however, is: Because of those liberal moments - and one could say, actually, that even though the Mubarak regime certainly hadn't liberalized its state security apparatus, we are talking about an Egypt with a fairly respectable performance and economic growth. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): We're not talking about an Egypt absolutely stuck. For all the numbers of the destitute in Egypt, mostly the economic pain was felt about the young, the people who are on the streets. So the issue is, really: When you're in this period of relative modernization, how does the leader present himself, essentially, as supreme nationalist, the incarnation of the country? It's always a danger when you're old and decrepit, and you somehow don't seem to represent Egypt. So the issue is, really: And in the Egyptian case, the army, going way back to the uprisings of 1882 against the British and the French, the army has always seen itself as the cradle of reasserted national dignity, three wars against Israel and so on. So the issue is, really: So it is the case of the army, in their back rooms, trying to find a way in which some figure or some force can come forward and take on board the constitutional reforms which are clearly absolutely critical to an Egyptian national regeneration without simply surrendering power over the process to the street. NEAL CONAN, host: And Shadi Hamid, let me ask you about a transitional figure in Iran who's written, recently, that after his experience as president, after the 1979 revolution - Abolhassan Bani-Sadr we're talking about - he said one of the lessons he's learned, as he'd hoped to lead a democratic movement. Well, one of the things you never do is form a revolutionary guard. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Right, if we're talking - certainly the IRGC in Iran, the revolutionary guard, has played, you know, a role that I think many of us are aware of in terms of taking Iran in a very different direction than some of the original revolutionaries intended. And I think Iran's a very interesting case of how a revolution gets out of hand and starts out liberal and democratic and becomes something altogether different. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Iran is an instructive case, although it's not one that I think is particularly relevant when we're talking about Egypt. And I think there's been a lot of comparisons made in recent days, especially about the Muslim Brotherhood and the alarmism that we're hearing from Washington, that this might start out as a liberal democratic revolution, but then the Islamists will hijack it. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): So I think Iran has had the ability to, I think, taint our understanding of how change occurs and has really contributed to a paranoia about Islamists. And, I mean, we can certainly have a discussion about the Brotherhood, but suffice it to say that the Brotherhood is a relatively moderate and mainstream organization that isn't even nearly comparable to Khomeini and the people around him in '79. NEAL CONAN, host: Obviously, each case is different, and clearly, one is a Sunni country, one is a Shiite country, very different traditions about the engagement of clerics in temporal structures, if you will. NEAL CONAN, host: But Simon Schama, nevertheless, the Brotherhood - the Muslim Brotherhood - very well-organized, at least in part because of repeated and consistent and persistent attempts to suppress it. So, organized into resilient kinds of political structures. NEAL CONAN, host: And there is a history in all kinds of revolutions of resilient minorities, small groups, but better-organized groups, taking advantage. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Yeah, I do agree with the criticism of alarmism about the Muslim Brethren. They are, you know, have been ferociously condemned by al-Qaeda as being insufficiently jihadist. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): However, you are absolutely right, Neal. It's true, wherever you look, revolutions, as one of the Jehhondone(ph) minority in the national convention in France famously said, tend to devour their own children. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): And it's very hard to look at all-out revolutions and find ones - the Central European velvet revolutions were a case in point because Soviet military power decided to abdicate - that don't end up in the dictatorship of very well-organized minority groups. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): That was the case of the Bolsheviks who, when they were in power, you know, immediately dissolved the provisional constituent assembly and persecuted their opponents and locked them up. It was the case of Jacobean France. It was obviously the case in China. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): And it certainly was the case - you could say that for all its fundamentalist, Islamic character in Iran - Iran was absolutely following the course, which popular revolutions, alas, often do. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Egypt is different - you know, it may be that it's Egypt's redeeming quality, having said it lacks a strategic sense of where it's going, is indeed its chaos, its sort of pluralistically chaotic quality right now. The Muslim Brethren do not, sort of - giving off a kind of particularly Bolshevik odor -they may teach themselves to adopt the cunning, the wait-and-see and then pounce game that the Bolsheviks did in 1917. That remains to be seen. But I will say that what usually, you know, enables such tough, well-organized minorities to put themselves in the position of a dictatorship is usually the foreign intervention, the threat of a foreign war, the sense of a foreign conspiracy. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Those - this happened in Iran. Chinese had fought a civil war. It certainly happened in revolutionary France. That is the classic template. If somebody from the outside puts a great, hobnailed boot in the stomach of the revolution, generally power falls to the most militant of the opposition. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): I have to disagree with a little bit, in the sense that the international factor in Egypt I think will work out in a different way. The U.S. is going to be involved in this transition. It already is, and that's what we're going to continue to see over the next year or two years. And it's very difficult to see how the Brotherhood or any other organization could pounce and really come into the political vacuum. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): The U.S. is overseeing all of this, and all the parties involved in Egypt are very sensitive to the fact that the world is watching, the world cares, and that's why the Muslim Brotherhood is purposely playing a limited role, because they know that if they play a more visible role, that is going to frighten the international community, and particularly the U.S. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): So I think for the foreseeable future, the Brotherhood is going to purposely limit its involvement in any interim or transitional government, because it knows that once it has more than a limited number of ministries, say, in a unity government, that is going to cause an international outcry. And I think the examples of failed revolutions in, say, Algeria 1991, '92, an example that I don't know enough of us remember; and also Hamas coming to power in 2006, Islamists have learned that sometimes it's better not to rule. The world isn't quite ready for Islamists just yet. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, let's get a caller in. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Just one very quick point. NEAL CONAN, host: Very quickly, if you would. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Very, very quick point. The issue is not America. It's Israel. It's if, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power - not came to power, but shared power in such a way as to alarm the Israelis into something dramatic, that which is very, very unlikely, I think, very unlikely - that would be a classic revolutionary template for power going to the most militant inside Egypt. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's get Silash(ph) on the line, Silash with us from Allegan in Michigan. SILASH (Caller): Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. NEAL CONAN, host: Go ahead, please. SILASH (Caller): Revolutions in the Islamic world tend to succeed or fail depending on which side the religious establishment weighs in. Could you please comment? For example, Ayatollah Khomeini is the obvious one. And now, in Tunisia, the religious leader who has been exiled for 22 years has come back. So please comment. NEAL CONAN, host: Shadi Hamid? Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Sure. The religious leader that you're referring to in Tunisia is not, in fact, a religious leader. He's not a cleric. This is I think this is a misconception about much of the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups in general are not clerical organization. They're almost never run by clerics. They actually usually don't have good relationships with the clerical establishment. The Brotherhood in Egypt is made up primarily of doctors, engineers, lawyers. It has very, very few preachers or clerics at its in its senior levels. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Actually, in fact, if we look at the establishment in the religious establishment in Egypt, they're largely with the regime only because they have to be. The religious establishment in Egypt is controlled by the regime. There isn't a separation of mosque and state, and that's something that we've seen in most of the Arab world throughout the 20th century. And that's why the religious establishment doesn't have the same kind of authority and respect it once did. And there are and that establishment is very much playing a minor role and not really just pretty much supporting the regime or coming up with patois that justify regime actions. So if anything, the rise of Islamism is actually counter to the religious establishments' preferences here. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you very much, Silash. Email from Paul in Grand Rapids. The Nietzchean concept of the ubermensch comes to mind given the examples of the French, Iranian and Bolshevik revolutions - I always like to get the ubermensch on the program. Tiananmen Square on one hand and Tahrir Square on the other, of those who rise above the law and take things into their own hands involving gratuitous bloodshed, get things done. Their ends justify their means. However, those that follow the rules, e.g., peaceful protests, are more susceptible to defeat at the hands of those who do not. The American revolutionary rights would be an anomalous example since the Americans did not run around executing all opposition and the established power structure. But we certainly did not follow the rules of the status quo. I wonder, Simon Schama. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Yeah. If you want to I'm an untermensch really, actually not an ubermensch. So I'm completely flummoxed by... NEAL CONAN, host: Maybe a middlemensch. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): But a middlemensch? Thank you, Neal. Yeah. I'm a bit flummoxed by that. If it means that revolutionary situations are ripe for the immergence of some trans-partisan figure, shall we say, it goes back to the point I was making about a figure possibly emerging from the ranks of the army who is prepared possibly to dispose of Mubarak, but present himself in the way in which Nasser did. Although the waft is really out of the I don't mean literally as inherent of waft, but represent themselves as a sort of symbol of the reborn Egyptian nation. That's, I suppose, always possible. But there's nothing guaranteed about revolutions. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Essentially, again, not to beat the issue over the head with it, it's usually in war time. Both revolutionary Russia and revolutionary France were beset by foreign invaders and it's usually which is not the case in Egypt. It's as your other guest said, it's usually in that situation where there's a sense of terrified, almost paranoid national emergency about what might happen to the people in the streets and the popular insurrection that a strong man emerges. There doesn't necessarily seem to be anything like that in the Egyptian situation that would make us that apocalyptic. I certainly hope not anyway. NEAL CONAN, host: Historian Simon Schama, also with us Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's go next to Al(ph) and Al is with us from Eugene in Oregon. AL (Caller): Thank you very much. You know, I have a couple of question. One, could the revolution happen through nonviolence and now - known as the power of Twitter and Facebook? And the second question, what would happen to those young people of Tahrir Square from the government since it seems to be getting its footing? NEAL CONAN, host: Can you give us an example, Al, of a nonviolent revolution that... AL (Caller): Well, maybe in India. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Simon Schama... Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Yes, that is likely the one I was thinking of. Gandhi put such -such a lot of good points being made by the callers. The British were, thank goodness, victims of their own liberal hypocrisy in some sense. They wanted to believe, actually, that the raj could go on ruling in the interest of the masses of Indians. And Gandhi's extraordinary revolution - it is really rightly thought of, you know, maybe as a revolution. It was much more emphatically nonviolent, even than Nelson Mandela's in South Africa, was it's ability to mobilize millions of people in strikes and marches. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): But it was - the extraordinary thing about the Gandhian movement after the First World War was that it was constantly on the move. One day, you know, one event would be a massive national general strike. Another would be a profound and symbolic march to the salt pans to the sea. And it was able to really torment the British by saying come and get us wherever we are in our masses. Imprison us, persecute us. It was an astonishing and I think rather kind of one-off example of a massively successful as I say, depended on this peculiarly, gentlemanly liberal, slightly hypocritical, self-mortification of conscience that the late British Empire had. You don't really have that in this case, so you don't really have it. It certainly don't have it in places like China or Iran. NEAL CONAN, host: And important to remember, it was followed - yes, the British left peacefully... Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): By violence, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: ...followed by terrible violence in the partition, so. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): Yes. One has to say, for the most part, a peaceful revolution is an oxymoron. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Simon Schama, thank you very much for your time, as always. Mr. SIMON SCHAMA (University Professor of History, Columbia University): You're welcome. NEAL CONAN, host: Simon Schama, university professor at Columbia in New York. And he joined us from our bureau in New York. Our thanks also to Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center, with us from the BBC Studios at Western House in London. Thanks very much for your time today. Mr. SHADI HAMID (Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center): Thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: Coming up, one day after the Super Bowl, Buzz Bissinger joins us to argue that football without violence would not be football at all. The Opinion Page is next. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR NEWS.

Egypt's government continues to hold on to power after two weeks of sometimes violent protests. History offers a guide to what makes a revolution more likely to succeed — or fail. Iran's popular uprising, for example, succeeded in 1979, but China crushed the 1989 uprising in Tiananmen Square. Shadi Hamid, director of research, Bookings Doha Center Simon Schama, professor, Columbia University

Ägyptens Regierung hält nach zwei Wochen teils gewaltsamer Proteste weiter an der Macht. Die Geschichte bietet einen Leitfaden dafür, was den Erfolg einer Revolution wahrscheinlicher macht – oder scheitert. Der Volksaufstand im Iran zum Beispiel war 1979 erfolgreich, aber China schlug den Aufstand von 1989 auf dem Platz des Himmlischen Friedens nieder. Shadi Hamid, Forschungsdirektor, Bookings Doha Center Simon Schama, Professor, Columbia Universität

埃及政府在经历了两周时有发生的暴力抗议活动后，继续掌权。历史提供了一个指南，让我们知道导致革命成功或者失败的原因是什么。例如， 1979 年伊朗人民起义成功，但中国镇压了 1989 年天安门广场起义。：莎迪·哈米德，预约多哈中心研究部主任；西蒙·沙玛，哥伦比亚大学教授

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Over the past 23 hours since President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would step down but not until he served out the last seven months of his term, the remarkable, peaceful scene in Cairo's Tahrir Square became a bloody battleground as pro-Mubarak forces battled anti-government protestors. More than 600 are reported injured, one killed. An update from NPR's Eric Westervelt in Cairo later in this hour. NEAL CONAN, host: But first, no matter who takes over in Egypt and no matter when, the relationship with Israel is certain to change. The peace agreement they reached in 1979 transformed the Middle East. Any significant alteration will change it again. NEAL CONAN, host: In a moment, Yossi Klein Halevi and Shibley Telhami on what the treaties meant over the past 32 years and what changes may mean, and we'll take your calls. NEAL CONAN, host: The relationship between Egypt and Israel is destined for change. What does that mean for Egypt, for Israel and for the United States? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the program, winter's wallop on your wallet. If the sequence of storms is driving you broke, if you're laughing all the way to the bank, email us your story: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: But first, Israel, Egypt and the U.S. And we begin with Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute and a contributing editor to The New Republic. He joins us from his home in Jerusalem. NEAL CONAN, host: And thanks very much for being with us tonight. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Well, thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: You wrote an op-ed in today's New York Times titled "Israel Alone Again." And I wonder if that summarizes the way a lot of Israelis are feeling tonight. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Oh, when an Israeli looks out at the region, we look out at our borders, we see Iran coming closer and closer. We've got one Iranian proxy on our northern border. That's Hezbollah. We have Hamas on our southern border. Hamas is the only Sunni movement to align with Shiite Iran. And now we see the upheavals in Egypt and the threat of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, and that is the ultimate Israeli nightmare. NEAL CONAN, host: There was - interesting, in the New York Times on Monday, a senior Israeli official was anonymously quote as saying: For the United States, Egypt is the keystone of its Middle East policy. For Israel, it's the whole arch. Is that an exaggeration? Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): It isn't an exaggeration, because without Egypt, there is no credible, conventional Arab military threat to Israel. The last conventional war that Israel fought was Yom Kippur 1973, which was the combined Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Since then, all of Israel's wars have been essentially asymmetrical conflicts against terrorist groups. And that was a direct result of Egypt removing itself from the confrontation states. NEAL CONAN, host: So in those asymmetrical conflicts against Hezbollah in Lebanon, against Hamas in Gaza, Israel is Goliath, and they are David. All of a sudden, that calculus begins to change. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Well, the truth is that that calculus was always only partial because, you know, to understand how an Israeli views this conflict, imagine having a split screen in your brain. On one side of the screen, you're Goliath against the Palestinian David. And in the other side of the screen, you're the David against the Arab and Muslim Goliath. And that calculus has always been there. It has only intensified and become more frightening in recent days. NEAL CONAN, host: One of the key parts of the 1979 Camp David Accords, the agreement between Israel and Egypt, was land for peace. Israel gave back the Sinai, which it had conquered in war, and in return for peace with Israel. And it's been a cold peace, I guess - at various times, colder than others. But nevertheless, that principle, is that in danger? Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Well, you know, it's an extraordinary phenomenon if you think about how even a cold peace managed to sustain some sense of Israeli optimism in the possibility of an ongoing land-for-peace momentum. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): And now, with the threat to the Egyptian-Israeli peace, what remains of Israeli optimism is under severe strain. And if that peace treaty collapses, even the cold peace with Egypt, if that isn't sustained in some way, then the chances of replicating another land-for-peace agreement will be increasingly remote in this generation. NEAL CONAN, host: Will there be political consequences? Will people in Israel look back and say: Oh, my gosh. We had a 30-year window to negotiate with -some sort of an agreement with the Palestinians without the threat of a, as you say, a credible threat of a conventional war against this country, and we squandered it. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Look, there's always the fear that many of us have, and that's the balance between opportunity and threat. In terms of a 30-year window, the Palestinian National Movement didn't recognize Israel's right to exist until the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993. So, in effect, we've had a 15-year window. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): And even that 15-year window, you know, Israel made several offers of land for peace. Israel endorsed the Clinton proposals in December, 2000, and then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat preferred to launch a four-year war of suicide attacks. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Two years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put a detailed map on the table, offering the equivalent of over 99 percent of the territory, and that did not lead to a deal, either. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): So look, mistakes have been made on both sides, but the basic issue, as far as I see it, that's holding up a deal is the question of refugee return, which for any Israeli government - left, right or center - is simply a code word for the demographic destruction of Israel. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): And until there's a fundamental change on the Palestinian side, as there has been a fundamental change on the Israeli side in Israel's willingness to trade land for peace with Palestinians, the Palestinians are going to have to offer, as their part of the peace agreement, a substantial concession on refugee return. NEAL CONAN, host: In this new calculation, if they're - when and if the new Egyptian government changes - and it will be less, almost certainly, less warm to the Israeli peace treaty than its predecessor - does not Israel suddenly have a new relationship with the United States, as well? You say Israel alone, except for its most important ally, the United States. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Well, you know, we're watching the American response to developments in Egypt very carefully, and I think that for Israel, the essential question is: Will Washington be tempted to enter into some form of relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood? Or will it - and this, of course, is Israel's position - regard the Muslim Brotherhood as, in effect, an essential part of the global jihadist movement and therefore beyond the pale? Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): If the administration begins to yield to the temptation to see the Muslim Brotherhood as potentially moderate rather than what the Muslim Brotherhood really is in its essence, which is a jihadist movement, then I think we're heading for another strain in the relationship. I hope that clarity will prevail in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's bring another voice into the conversation: Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, and has been with us frequently on this program. NEAL CONAN, host: Shibley, nice to have you back with us. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): Good to be with you. NEAL CONAN, host: And you made a prediction in the New York Times, as well: Benjamin Netanyahu will likely be seen by future Israelis as the prime minister who lost Egypt. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): And I meant by that exactly the kind of question you ask, which is not so much that he lost it for the U.S., because obviously there's nothing he could have done to stop the change in Egypt. I meant exactly in historical perspective. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): This is an end of an incredible era in which Israel did have an opportunity to negotiate a peace deal. Obviously, as Mr. Halevi said, you know, both sides have squandered opportunities, and both sides are going to have to deal with that. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): But there's no question that from the Israeli point of view, the strategic environment that existed, particularly since the Oslo process started and certainly in the first two years of this president, who wanted to make this issue a priority for diplomacy - and when you look back at it, you know, 20 years from now, I think people that are going to look with a lot of regret. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): But having said all of that, I am not as pessimistic about the relationship as has been expressed, in large part because you have to break the relationship into two. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): One part of the relationship is the end of war, which is really the primary objective. Israelis never really thought, you know, back in -let's say in the 1960s or even early 1970s, they're going to have a transformed relationship, and Egypt's going to turn into an ally. What they were hoping is that Egypt would no longer have wars with Israel, take it out of that game. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): That's what the Camp David accords did. I actually wrote a book on the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, and I thought about it a lot. And most certainly, that was the aim, the strategic aim from the Israeli point of view. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): Now, having said that, what Israel loses now is something really different. It is not going to lose that. It's very unlikely that Israel, that the Egyptian-Israeli treaty will be torn. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): It's unlikely that the prospect of war between Israel and Egypt is going to become real, no matter what happens in Egypt. Because what we see in Egypt, frankly, is that this military institution that is in place now -that is sort of integrated into the global environment in the U.S. and coordinated across the region - is most likely going to remain a very important institution, particularly on matters related to war and peace. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): And Egypt, no matter how it goes, is going to still have an interest in keeping the peace and focus more on building internally, even if it rhetorically moves away. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): What will disappear is that in the past few years in particular, Egypt has become more than just a country not at war with Israel. It has become an active ally, coordinating with Israel, replacing what the -the kind of role that Turkey played and back in the - before the overthrow of the shah, the shah of Iran. And that is a huge loss, because it comes at a time when Israel does not have any major player in the region who can play that role. NEAL CONAN, host: Shibley Telhami and Yossi Klein Halevi are with us. We'll get an update from Cairo in about 15 minutes. So stay with us for that. We're talking about Israel, Egypt and the U.S. NEAL CONAN, host: Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: President Obama took a firmer stance against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak today. After protests in Cairo turned violent, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said change must happen now, not in September, as Mubarak proposed last night. And Gibbs added: Now means now. NEAL CONAN, host: We'll get an update on developments in Cairo in a few minutes from NPR's Eric Westervelt. Right now, we're looking a bit down the road. The relationship between Israel and Egypt is destined for change. What does that mean for Egypt, Israel and the U.S.? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Our guest are Yossi Klein Halevi, contributing editor at The New Republic and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute. And Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. NEAL CONAN, host: And Shibley Telhami, can you imagine that any future Egyptian government would not cease the collaboration that has cut off Hamas in Gaza, that goods and equipment and all kinds of supplies are going to flow more flow more freely across that border? Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): There's no Egyptian government, even if Mr. Mubarak actually stays in office until September. No Egyptian government can now be insensitive to where its public opinion is, and public opinion is very angry with Israel and is very angry with their government on the approach they have taken. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): And they certainly sympathetic, you know, with Gaza, and they've -particularly the WikiLeaks have hurt recently, revealing what people have suspected, that in fact, you know, their government was actually playing a role in isolating Hamas, even as it was mediating. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): So there's no question that public opinion - and I measure it. I do public opinion polls in Egypt. I've been doing it for a decade - is, does not see eye to eye with the government on this issue. And every government is going to have to be sensitive to that. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): So I think that perhaps, even, I would say the first immediate outcome of the current Egypt, today's Egypt, meaning Egypt has changed already -we talk about what if it changes, it has changed - will be a reluctance to cooperate on isolating Hamas undoubtedly. NEAL CONAN, host: And Yossi Klein Halevi, if Israel sees that, how might it respond? Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Well, Israel's ability to respond at this point is quite limited. We saw that the siege that Israel imposed on the Hamas regime was weakened last June in the wake of the Turkish flotilla, so that the possibility, really, of further weakening Hamas without the support of Egypt is not really an option facing Israel now. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): And that will have consequences in terms of how the Israeli public views the possibility of a land for peace agreement with the Palestinians because a viable Palestinian state depends on Israel being able to make a deal with a single Palestinian authority that represents a majority of the Palestinian people. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): That situation has not been in place in the last years and with Hamas growing in strength and in control of Gaza, and the notion of Israel negotiating land for peace agreements with what is essentially a corrupt dictatorship run by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, and Israel then withdrawing from the West Bank and from East Jerusalem, opens up the risk of a Hamas takeover in areas that border the Israel population centers. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): So that when the Israel public looks at the map and looks at the growing strength of Hamas and now the likely withdrawal of Egypt from the anti-Hamas arc, then I think we're looking at an even greater sense of fear in the Israeli public toward the Palestinians. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): You know, I think... NEAL CONAN, host: Shibley, excuse me, I wanted to get a caller in on the conversation. Forgive me. This is Yanika(ph), Yanika with us from Tonasket in Washington. YANIKA (Caller): Yeah, I think that the Israeli paranoia about Hamas is a little bit exaggerated. I have heard that the Gazan people are turning against them and that the most important thing in the Egyptian-Israeli relationship is that they not go to war but that Egypt opens the Suez Canal and breaks the blockade against Gaza, which is terribly similar to the Warsaw ghetto. That's my comment. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Wow, what a comment. I don't know whether to begin with paranoia or the Warsaw ghetto. The Warsaw ghetto is simply such an outrageous and offensive analogy that I'm not going to address it. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): In terms of paranoia, Hamas is an organization whose official charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hamas has spread the old anti-Semitic lie of the protocols of the elders of Zion of an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Hamas attacked Israel for 10 years, Israel's civilian centers, with rockets, blew up our buses, our cafes. You know, the notion of paranoia against an organization that, if you're going to use Nazi analogies, then I think the Nazi analogy would be better directed toward the jihadists who want to destroy the Jewish people. NEAL CONAN, host: Shibley, I'm sorry? Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): Well, there were a couple things I wanted to say. Before I answer the question directly, you know, there is the - I think the whole projection of what is going to happen and what Israel's assessment is going to be and what the Arab assessments are going to be and what the U.S. is going to be, it's going to be a very fluid situation. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): I don't think we really exactly know, but I could give - you know, I could paint scenarios that actually could go the other direction very easily. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): Frankly, Israel is not the only one which is nervous, obviously. Every Arab ruler, frankly, is nervous right now in terms of what their publics might do and how it might alter the picture. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): The United States at this point has to sit back to figure out what is the ramification of all this for its priorities, you know, the military presence, how we fully disentangle from Iraq. What do we do at diplomacy? Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): SO think everybody's going to sit back and reassess, but that doesn't mean it's all going to go downhill because I can imagine even if Egypt, this pressure on Egypt to, let's say, not be as warm with Israel as before and maybe even some voices saying off the relationship, you can imagine if there's an Arab league proposal like the Arab peace plan put back on the table, it'll be far more meaningful to Israel than it was just a month ago because it'll include Egypt, which was out of it. And they had taken it for granted, and it might actually be more attractive to the Israeli public if there's a comprehensive peace. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): So I don't think it means - we don't really know. There's - obviously, the Israeli public is very insecure right now. They've taken this relationship as an anchor of the strategic picture in the region, of their own security, of their own strategy and their own effort. (Unintelligible). Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): And on Hamas specifically, I don't really know, you know, what they want in the end. What I do know is they are not a global jihadist movement. That has actually been proven. It doesn't mean that they'll accept Israel. That I don't know. But they're not a global jihadist movement. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): They have not cooperated with al-Qaeda. They have never sent forces outside of Palestine to fight other Islamic causes. They are a nationalist religious party. The one thing I don't know about them is whether: A, will they ever accept Israel; or B, will they really stick to their effort of creating an Islamic state. And that's the opposition to them by a lot of Palestinians who reject them. It's not that they're a global jihadist. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): I don't know whether they could change, but I do know that the PLO was, in the past, looked at in almost the similar way. And they obviously were integrated. You have to make peace with your enemies. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): From the point of view of the Palestinians, it's very hard for me as an analyst, just looking at it from the outside, to envision that Israel and the Palestinians can make a deal in this environment, particularly with all of the assault on the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, without some way testing whether Hamas could be brought into this or not. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): And that's going to be tested soon enough. I think the key to a deal, in any case, isn't just to be a bilateral deal because Israelis are even going to be less secure now in terms of a bilateral deal that doesn't include some more comprehensive vision for the region. And they're not going to do it unless there's some kind of a broader peace in the region. That might actually be turned into an asset, not into a negative. NEAL CONAN, host: We just have a minute before we have to go to our update from Cairo, but Yossi Klein Halevi, might the glass be half-full, as opposed to half-empty? Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): One wishes that the analysis we've just heard is fulfilled. I think that in Israel, we're trying to cling to whatever signs of hope, fragile signs of hope, we can find. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): The bottom line, I think, for Israel as we watch events unfold in Cairo is what role will the Muslim Brotherhood play in the new Egyptian government? If the Muslim Brotherhood is contained, if the democratic forces are able to prevail, the genuine democratic forces in Egypt are able to begin constituting a new government, then I think we might see something of the Egyptian-Israeli relationship salvaged. And that, of course, is the profound hope of everyone in Israel watching it happening. NEAL CONAN, host: Yossi Klein Halevi, thanks very much for your time today. We appreciate it. Mr. YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI (Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute; Contributing Editor, The New Republic): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute and, again, the author of a op-ed in The New York Times. Shibley Telhami, an Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland. As always, Shibley Telhami, thanks very much for your time too. Professor SHIBLEY TELHAMI (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland): My pleasure. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's go now to Cairo. Events are moving quickly in Egypt. NPR's Eric Westervelt is among the correspondents we have there. And he's just outside Tahrir Square this evening and joins us by phone. Eric, good evening. ERIC WESTERVELT: Good evening, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: And tell us what happened today as protests turned violent. ERIC WESTERVELT: Well, they really - at first, protesters in Tahrir Square who, for more than a week, have been mostly peaceful in their efforts to call for an end to Hosni Mubarak's regime, they tried to respond peacefully at first and implore the sort of pro-Mubarak forces to stand down. But then it quickly got out of control. ERIC WESTERVELT: Pro-Mubarak forces were throwing rocks, bricks. Some were holding knives and wielding pieces of metal. Some even charged into the center of the square riding camels and horses. A melee broke out and then really, Neal, for the rest of the day, they fought running street battles in and around Tahrir Square. ERIC WESTERVELT: There have been many injuries. The health minister reports some six to 700 injuries, many of them from head wounds from people hit with rocks. I saw many people grabbing pieces of corrugated metal from construction sites and sort of using those as primitive, makeshift shields as they sort of charged forward and then would throw rocks or really whatever they could get their hands on, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: And we've also seen Molotov cocktails being thrown as well. The pro-Mubarak forces, who are they? ERIC WESTERVELT: Well, demonstrators here accuse the government of paying people to come out and implement this violence. They - many demonstrators also think it's heavily infiltrated by plain-clothes security forces. And there certainly are signs, Neal, that this was an organized, sort of, counterattack. This wasn't some random thing. They came in from all sides, around the square, moved in carefully. Many of them were armed and were ready to use violence. ERIC WESTERVELT: And, importantly, the Egyptian military stood by and let this happen by and large. They fired a few warning shots occasionally, a little bit of teargas. But other than that, the Egyptian military stood by and ignored, you know, entreaties from people to intervene and let the clashes take place. NEAL CONAN, host: Last night, we heard a statement from the military, this after President Mubarak's speech where he said he would step down but only after he completed his term, and a speech - statement from the military saying, all right. Your message has been heard. Enough. The demonstrations are over. ERIC WESTERVELT: That's right. And state media again tonight sort of reiterated, you know, a call for all protesters to leave the square. And I have to say at this hour, we're still hearing some gunshots or seeing some Molotov cocktails being thrown, some clashes taking place in and around the square. So my sense is it's going to be a long evening. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Eric Westervelt, NPR foreign correspondent, with us from just outside Tahrir Square in Cairo. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And, Eric, just to clarify, the military praised for its neutrality for not acting against the anti-government demonstrators over the past several days, again, effectively, taking no role at all today. Just being neutral, just letting this happen. ERIC WESTERVELT: That's right. And previously, they even signaled strongly that some of the grievances by the demonstrators, you know, in their words, were legitimate. But today really marked a strong shift with the military standing by and letting this go on. And it's going to be a key question over night and then tomorrow if it continues, you know, what role with the military play? Will they allow police forces to clear the square? Will they take part in that? Have they cut some kind of deal with the Mubarak regime to, suddenly, in many ways, change their public outlook toward the protesters in Tahrir Square. NEAL CONAN, host: Throughout the past week and more, we've heard descriptions of the crowd there in Cairo and elsewhere as being a spectrum of Egyptian society: men, women, children sometimes, people who are professionals, people who are workers, people who are out of work, just about everybody from all walks of life. Has that changed or has just the mood changed? ERIC WESTERVELT: I think the mood has changed and I think the violence today, Neal, has certainly scared off some of the spectrum of the protesters across Cairo. You did see more families and a wider spectrum of people, ages and professions previously. And now, I think you've got a hardcore group of protesters that are more camping out here. And it's possible that perhaps this is what the pro-Mubarak forces wanted, that this violence will scare away anti-government demonstrators tomorrow and in coming days. NEAL CONAN, host: And at that point, the leaders of the opposition movements -well, a lot of people there in the square are saying, we didn't want any parties. We don't want movements. We just want Mubarak gone. But at that point, organized parties would seem to take on a more important role. ERIC WESTERVELT: I think you're exactly right. And in fact, Egypt's vice president tonight signaled and said, you know, there will be no negotiations with the parties until the protests stop. So the Egyptian government - there's some gunshots right there. The Egyptian government is remaining defiant, Neal. The foreign ministry put out a strongly-worded statement today and it spoke - his spokesman spoke to the media and basically said, you know, the country's denouncing violence today. They're interfering in Egypt's internal affairs and they need to mind their own business, essentially. NEAL CONAN, host: And the gunshots you were describing, I know you can't necessarily see them. But in the past, have they largely been in the air, warning shots, or have they been directed at people? ERIC WESTERVELT: In the past, they've largely been warning shots to get the crowd back. But tonight, Neal, it's harder to gauge at certain areas what's going on. You see hear clashes. You hear gunshots, military helicopters circling overhead. And given the violence that broke out in all quarters today, it's unclear what the shots are right now. NEAL CONAN, host: In past nights, as police vanished from the streets, you had local groups taking up responsibility for the security of their own neighborhoods. Is that being discouraged? ERIC WESTERVELT: I can only speak from in and around Tahrir Square, where I've been today, Neal. And I noticed that, certainly, these neighborhood watches had taken on a much more, sort of, paranoid and menacing feel about them. One guy pulled a knife on me and, you know, searched me through and through, checked my bags, had me take off my shoes and wanted to make sure I wasn't carrying anything in my boots, even though I made it clear by my ID and explaining to him, otherwise, I was a journalist. But many of checkpoints, given the situation today, there's a fear and paranoia at these locally-manned neighborhood checkpoints. NEAL CONAN, host: Eric, thanks very much. And please be careful. ERIC WESTERVELT: Thanks, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR's Eric Westervelt with us from Cairo. Of course, more on this all this evening on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. NEAL CONAN, host: Coming up, we're going to be talking about the snow that, well, struck so much of the country, the ice as well. 800-989-8255. How is it affecting your pocketbook? Email us: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Violence has erupted as pro-government forces clash with protesters in Cairo. And as uprisings continue across the Middle East, guests revisit the historic relationship between Egypt and Israel, and what a post-Mubarak government might mean for the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Yossi Klein Halevi, fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute and contributing editor, The New Republic Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland Eric Westervelt, foreign correspondent, NPR

In Kairo ist es zu gewalttätigen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen regierungsfreundlichen Kräften und Demonstranten gekommen. Während die Aufstände im Nahen Osten weitergehen, werfen die Gäste einen Blick auf die historischen Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Israel und darauf, was eine Regierung nach Mubarak für den ägyptisch-israelischen Friedensvertrag von 1979 bedeuten könnte. Yossi Klein Halevi, Stipendiat am Shalom Hartman Institut und Redakteur bei The New Republic\nShibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor für Frieden und Entwicklung, Universität Maryland\nEric Westervelt, Auslandskorrespondent, NPR

开罗亲政府武装与抗议者发生冲突，暴力活动随之爆发。随着中东各地起义的继续，来宾们重新审视了埃及和以色列之间的历史关系，以及后穆巴拉克政府对1979年埃以和平条约的意义。沙洛姆·哈特曼研究所研究员、《新共和》特约编辑约西·克莱因·哈勒维，马里兰大学和平与发展教授安瓦尔·萨达特、施布勒·特哈米，美国国家公共广播电台驻外记者驻外记者埃里克·韦斯特韦尔特

NEAL CONAN, host: You may have heard, the Green Bay Packers play the Pittsburgh Steelers this Sunday in Super Bowl XLV, which also happens to be the biggest betting day of the year in this country. Gambling on football is based on the point spread. In this game, for example, Green Bay is favored to win by two and a half points. If you bet $100 on Green Bay and they win by three points or more, you collect a hundred dollars. But if they score only one or two points more than Pittsburgh or lose outright, you have to pay 110. That $10 fee is known as the vigorish, or the vig. NEAL CONAN, host: In a piece on theatlantic.com, Brendan Koerner argues that betting on pro football is a mug's game and claims there are better ways for sports gamblers to cash in. If you're betting on the Super Bowl, what went into your calculation? 800-989-8255 is the phone number. 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Brendan Koerner is a contributing editor for Wired Magazine and joins us from our bureau in New York. NEAL CONAN, host: Nice to have you with us today. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: And the point spread is often hailed as a creation of genius, much simpler to understand than, say, estimating the odds on Green Bay are - and I'm making this up - four to five. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yeah. That's exactly right. There was actually an inventor of the point spread named Charles McNeil. He was actually one of John F. Kennedy's prep school teachers before he became a securities analyst in Chicago in the '30s. But his real passion was gambling. And he eventually quit his job as an analyst to become a gambler full time. Was so successful, in fact, in betting on baseball in the '30s that he was banned from pretty much every bookie joint in Chicago. So he set up his own bookmaking operation. And that's where he realized, you could get people interested in betting on football, which was then a very minor sport compared to baseball, by having them bet not on odds but rather by how many points one team might win by. NEAL CONAN, host: And the same system is also used on basketball, but you say, in fact, it's so simple, it's dumb. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Well, it's ingenious because it's really effective at getting 50 percent of the money on one side and 50 percent on the other, which is ideal for a bookmaking operation. More than that, I think it's much easier for people to understand than odds. We kind of have a national math anxiety. So when odds pop up, our eyes kind of glaze over, mine included. But points and how many points a team will win by is much easier to process. It's much more intuitive for an amateur. NEAL CONAN, host: So if the point spread, well, is a perfect exemplar of the market forces, that if you set the line at six and money pours in on one team, you adjust the line to five or four or whatever it is until you get half the money on one side and half the money on the other. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): That's exactly right. The line will keep on moving pretty much right up to game time. NEAL CONAN, host: And so what's wrong with it in terms of making a bet and making some money? Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Well, there's nothing wrong with it from an entertainment perspective. Certainly it's fun to be betting. I'm taking the Packers on Sunday. But in terms of being professional, it's really not the way to go. I kind of wrote that piece in atlantic.com based on a relative of mine who's a professional gambler and quite successful over his long career. And what I learned from him is that real professionals don't just make one bet per game. They pursue hedging strategies in football. That means making multiple bets. For example, the over/under, how many cumulative points, how many touchdowns will be scored, how many turnovers. Side bets like that. The same way Wall Street traders hedge their bets. NEAL CONAN, host: You can get all kinds of crazy bets on the Super Bowl - which team scores first, which team scores last, first team to kick a field goal - all that kind of stuff, and crazier than that. Those are fairly conventional. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yeah. I remember hearing one story about a man who bet a million dollars on the opening coin flip when I was a kid. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): You know, that guy may have had a gambling problem. NEAL CONAN, host: You also say that it is - if you're a professional gambler, you're better off with baseball and the ponies. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yeah. Baseball in particular. Baseball still operates by odds. And also, it's easier to handicap because so much rides on one player, and that's the pitchers in the game. So real professional gamblers do pay attention to betting on baseball, which very few casual gamblers, such as myself, ever considered doing. As for horseracing, it's really something where the more work you put into it, the more you can get out of it. Intelligence really matters in horseracing. My relative would actually move to a town with an operational track for an entire season. He would go down to, say, Miami for several months at a time and just hang out at the track down there, gather intelligence about horses, about jockeys. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Not only that, but also understanding parlay is very, very key in horse racing. Knowing when it makes sense to make to bet on multiple chains of races. You can get a bigger a payoff. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. The Pick 6 or even the Exacta or - well, whatever, the Daily Double. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): My relative, actually, I believe, paid for the down payment on one of his houses because he had a stake in a Pick 6 win ticket. NEAL CONAN, host: Which could pay off in, well, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Enormously, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah. Our guest is Brendan Koerner, a contributing editor for Wired magazine. He wrote an article for atlantic.com, "Betting on Sports Mathematics for the Win." 800-989-8255. How are you betting on the Super Bowl? What went into your calculations? Email us: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: And we'll start with Reese(ph), and Reese with us from Laramie in Wyoming. REESE (Caller): Hello, Neal. I love the show. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you. REESE (Caller): Long time listener. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you. REESE (Caller): I wanted to tell you that for the Super Bowl what I've done is I've done a teaser, which is, of course, taking a parlay, but for the Super Bowl I only took the over/under and the spread. So I picked the Steelers to win, or to cover the spread, and also to go under the overall point total. And what happens with teaser is you only get one source of juice for the game, but both things have to happen and you get spotted six points. So the Steelers have to lose by less than nine for me and the score has to be under 51 in total. NEAL CONAN, host: So all that complication, it's going to keep you riveted probably right until the final whistle. REESE (Caller): Definitely makes it more interesting. I would also caution people not to bet on basketball. NEAL CONAN, host: Why is that? REESE (Caller): It's just - it can be very erratic game. For instance, last night the best team in the NBA lost by, I believe, 13 points. The Spurs lost to Trailblazer by 13. And it was kind of stunning. So sometimes you can think you have the most locked bet in the NBA and one guy comes out, has a great game, and you're stuck. NEAL CONAN, host: Kapoof. Yeah, okay. Well, Reese, good luck. REESE (Caller): Thanks very much. You guys have a great day. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. And again, the over/under, which Reese mentioned, that's the total number of points scored by both teams. I'm not sure where the over/under line is on the Super Bowl. But it's generally somewhere around 40 points. Obviously, if the weather's bad, it's going to be harder to score and that line will go down. And Brendan Koerner, a lot of what happens in football depends on the weather. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yes, it does. You know, it does. The thing also about professional football in particular is that it's such a heavily coached, heavily managed game, that so many games come down to maybe three or four plays that can go one way or the other. There's so much variability on those three or four plays. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Remember, it's a very funny-shaped ball as well. So when that thing hits the turf and the whole game rides and who recovers a fumble, it's really kind of a mug's game and I think anyone can predict what's going to happen. NEAL CONAN, host: When you are betting against - with a bookmaker, the impression is you're betting against the house. When you're betting in horse racing, for example, it's para-mutual system, you literally know the odds. You're betting against everybody else who's betting that day, whether at off-tract betting or there at the tract itself. You can see exactly who - how much has been placed on every wager right there in front of you on the totalizer board. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): It's tough though because the intelligence you gather from doing that is based on a lot of people who are not betting rationally. First of all, obviously, the track - a track (unintelligible) what my relative calls degenerate gamblers, that would be the more polite term is compulsive gambler. So these are people who are not really making rational decisions, and also people like myself. When I go to the track, I often bet based on - if I like the horse's name or the color of the horse, or things that really have nothing to do with actual performance. So the intelligence you get by observing your fellow betters going after the odds is not always that great. NEAL CONAN, host: So you're not a studier of the daily racing form. You're not out there with the stopwatch at 6:00 in the morning getting the times of the workouts. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): If I was, I might do much better at the track. NEAL CONAN, host: It is a sport that rewards hard work. Baseball, though, as you suggest, if you have a feeling that, say, Cliff Lee, who's going to be pitching for the Philadelphia Phillies this year, might have a bad game against one team or another, well, the odds are going to be pretty good. You can make a lot of money. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): That's exactly right. If you have a contrarian impulse, or better yet, some kind of information that Cliff Lee is going to have an off night due to whatever is going on in his personal life or some history he has with a certain hitter that's not really out there in open market of ideas, then yes, you can certainly clean up if the odds are tilted against tilted against the field. NEAL CONAN, host: Yet football is a much bigger betting game than baseball. I mean, there's a lot more money wagered on football on any given Sunday than on - well, and certainly on the sport, just 16-game regular season, than on the whole baseball season put together. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): I think the point spread is part of that. I think the point spread makes betting on football a lot more fun. It's just a lot easier to understand. I think once you wade in to odds - people don't want to deal with math in their free time. But points are very easy to understand. NEAL CONAN, host: Math anxiety. You describe that in - well, you mention that in your piece. And the math anxiety as it applies to betting, explain. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Well, I think it's the same exacting that applies to investing. People don't want to deal with the math. That's why they go into mutual funds. That's why they go into index funds. It's professional traders, people with mathematical minds who really capitalize on these game, whether it would be securities trading or betting on sports. NEAL CONAN, host: And so those people - you also argue you'd rather see them betting on sports than setting up programs that will commodify our mortgages. But nevertheless, they're all doing the same thing. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): They're all working the angles. They all - the more you understand the rules, the more you can work the angles. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Brendan Koerner, a contributing editor for Wired magazine about the factors that go into Super Bowl bets. 800-989-8255. Who are you betting on and why? What are the factors that went into your calculations? And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming up to - which is coming to you from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we get Jim on the line. Jim's calling us from Phoenix. JIM (Caller): Hello. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. You're on the air. Go ahead, please. JIM (Caller): Yes. Actually, I work for the house. And you know, we - how we determine how good a player would be, would be look - we see their average bet, the amount of their bet, how compulsive they are, their loss history or their win history. And we use that to determine how -what the house edge on this player is. And we (unintelligible) on that. NEAL CONAN, host: You work for the house - you work for a casino, in other words. JIM (Caller): That's correct. NEAL CONAN, host: And do you work for the sports betting part of the casino? JIM (Caller): There is no - sports betting is illegal. NEAL CONAN, host: Except in Las Vegas. JIM (Caller): That's correct. In Las Vegas and a few other places. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah, and a few other places. So you have a - you keep a book, as it were, on all of your regulars and know their tendencies. And if they get too good, in fact, you will ban them from the casino? JIM (Caller): Actually, all the casinos do that. If you're a real smart businessman - actually, we do that based on your player's card. And we consistently look at your play and we comp(ph) you based on that. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, and Jim, that's interesting information. Thanks very much for the phone call. JIM (Caller): Indeed. NEAL CONAN, host: And Brendan Koerner, a lot of gamblers say that is grossly unfair. If you - the better you get at it, they ban you. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): They'll do that at tracks as well. My relative was actually banned from two tracks in his career. It does seem grossly unfair, but their supposition, they come and say, well, you must be doing - you're so good at this, you must be doing something illegal. And they don't really need to prove that in a court of law to ban you. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we can get another caller in on the conversation. And let's go next to - this is Lou. And Lou is calling us from Philadelphia. LOU (Caller): Hi. How are you doing? NEAL CONAN, host: And I think... LOU (Caller): I've been betting on the Super Bowls since I've been 18 years old. I'm in my mid-50s. First of all, that guy who's betting that over/under parlay should go to Gamblers Anonymous, because that's the world's stupidest bet. LOU (Caller): Second of all, I'm betting the Steelers. I think the points - I think it's an even a game and I think the points are worth it. If the Packers were favored - if the Steelers were favored by two and a half, I'd bet the Packers. I don't think there's a whit of difference between both teams. NEAL CONAN, host: So being from Philadelphia, you're not rooting for either side. LOU (Caller): No. No. But I'm glad to see two old-time franchises playing. I mean, I hate to see - I hate these, you know, these new - I never bet I never root for a team that moves, like the Colts. And I always like the old-time teams. NEAL CONAN, host: And Lou, is this going to be a mortgage-sized bet or just a $50 (unintelligible). LOU (Caller): No. No. I've been betting - I bet 50 to 100 a game, you know? NEAL CONAN, host: All right. LOU (Caller): Three, four games a week, you know? And you can bet basketball, but you got to bet college basketball. Pro basketball, guys can close up 18 points in a minute and a half. NEAL CONAN, host: Brendan, thanks very much. And it's interesting - the size of the bet is significant. People say unless you're a professional gambler, do not bet more than you can afford to lose, perhaps even if you are a professional gambler. And the point on college basketball, there have been any number of point shaving scandals over the years, where based on that point spread system, teams going back to, I guess, CCNY in 1951, the players say, well, we're not going to lose, we're just going to win by a little less than the point spread. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yeah, that's right. There was a big scandal in the '80s at of Tulane, I remember very well. And also the figure in "Goodfellas," the real-life figure Henry Hill, organized a point-shaving scandal with Boston College in the '70s as well. so it has happened from time to time, certainly. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Robert, Robert with us from St. Louis. ROBERT (Caller): Yeah. I have a comment and also a question. Question is, how do you determine - or where can you go to see how a team does against the line? Year in and year out - whether it be the Lions or the Packers or whoever. NEAL CONAN, host: Oh, there's any number of websites that would cover that, right, Brendan Koerner? Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Oh yeah. Just Google that, it'll come up right away. ROBERT (Caller): Okay. And then my other comment is, I personally believe that football is fixed, not on a game that's 50-50, but where the money is more lopsided, more like 70-30. And I think those games do occur, and I do believe personally that the refs have hand in this. Because I believe there's a holding - defensive, offensive - on every single play. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm not saying, Brendan Koerner, that this is - thanks very much for the call, Robert. And good luck on Sunday. This is a pervasive belief among some, but very, very difficult to prove. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Very difficult to prove. I think there have been some kind of freakonomics-style attempts to show aggregate, you know, aggregate results and show how (unintelligible) decisions maybe evidence of match fixing. I don't see the incentive for the NFL. Imagine if that was discovered. It would just ruin the entire league. There's too much money riding on keeping the game as fair as possible for them. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, just a couple of years ago, a professional referee in the NBA confessed to providing information to gamblers. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Yeah. And I think that - I mean, as I understand it, they went back and looked for any evidence of him fixing matches so he could benefit. As I believe, that there was not any evidence shown that he had fixed games to his own benefit. NEAL CONAN, host: And there are very, very few games where 70 percent of the money ends up on one side of the ledger and 30 percent on the other. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Well, that would be a tip-off right there. NEAL CONAN, host: That would be a tip-off right there. And in fact, there's been, interestingly in professional tennis, people who resign the match halfway through the match, and interesting look at some of the gambling money that's in on those contests too. Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): That's right. There's a match involving a Russian player a few years back where he resigned - he was a heavy favorite. And I believe he actually was later banned for a time. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email we have from Sue(ph) in Earlysville, Pennsylvania: Sorry, guys, mathematics be damned. My father, a lifetime Packers fan, will be watching the game. Ergo the Packers will lose by a heartbreaking margin. It's just the way it is. Time to face it. So... Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Never let emotions get in gambling. NEAL CONAN, host: Brandon Koerner, thanks very much for your time. Who are you betting on on Sunday, by the way? Mr. BRENDAN KOERNER (Contributing Editor, Wired Magazine): Packers. I'm taking the over. NEAL CONAN, host: Brandon Koerner's article, "Betting on Sports: Mathematics for the Win," ran on atlantic.com. There's a link to it on our website. That's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. He joined us from our bureau in New York.

Las Vegas oddsmakers favor the Packers over the Steelers in Super Bowl XLV. But Brendan Koerner, contributing editor for Wired, says save your money. The biggest gambling day of the year attracts fans and pro gamblers alike, but betting on professional football, Koerner warns, "is a mug's game."

Die Oddsmakers von Las Vegas bevorzugen die Packers gegenüber den Steelers im Super Bowl XLV. Aber Brendan Koerner, Redakteur bei Wired, rät, Geld zu sparen. Der größte Glücksspieltag des Jahres zieht Fans und Profispieler gleichermaßen an, aber auf den Profifußball zu wetten, warnt Körner, \"ein Spiel für Dummköpfe\".

在第45届超级碗中，拉斯维加斯的博彩公司更青睐包装工队而不是钢人队。但是《连线》杂志的特约编辑布伦丹·科尔纳说，还是省省吧。一年中最大的赌博日吸引了球迷和职业赌徒，但科纳警告说，在职业足球上下注“是一场傻瓜的游戏”。

IRA FLATOW, host: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Up next, when politics first met science and why they should stop seeing each other, at least according to my next guest. And he is a rarity these days, it seems. He's a self-described conservative and a climate scientist, and he believes that manmade climate change is happening and that we should do something about it. IRA FLATOW, host: But he might not get that much support from Republicans in Congress. According to the group ThinkProgress, more than half of the freshman Republicans elected last November don't stand with the majority of climate scientists when it comes to climate change. Here are a few examples of what some newly elected senators had to say on the subject. IRA FLATOW, host: From Wisconsin's Ron Johnson: I absolutely do not believe that the science of man-caused climate change is proven, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity. IRA FLATOW, host: Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey says: There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming. And Missouri's Roy Blunt: There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate or path of the Earth. IRA FLATOW, host: What's a Republican climate scientist to do? Can minds be changed? Or should scientists just stay away from Congress? IRA FLATOW, host: Joining me more to talk about - joining me to talk about it more is Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at MIT in Cambridge. Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): It's nice to be back. IRA FLATOW, host: You know, when we have you on the show, it's usually, you talk about your research. This is sort of a bit unusual. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): I much prefer talking about my research, to be honest. IRA FLATOW, host: But you did decide to enter the fray. I saw that you wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing one of your colleagues who had written about climate change for the newspaper. What made you decide it's time to jump in? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, in that particular case, I thought my colleague was just plain wrong. And I thought it was necessary to point that out. That's all. It wasn't so much of a political thing as simply disagreeing with his science. IRA FLATOW, host: But it appears that science now has become just another opinion in many circles. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): I think it's become another opinion in certain people's minds. And let me say that I think that there is a campaign of disinformation going on about this, and there has been before. We saw it before with the attempts by the tobacco industry to throw cold water on the notion that there was a connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): What's different about this time is that the suggestion is being made that the scientists, the climate scientists doing this, are being driven by their politics. That's very pernicious, and I'd like to try to stop that. IRA FLATOW, host: Do you think you can stop that? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): No. But I think we have to try. And one of the reasons I allowed myself to be interviewed by the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago is I thought - I saw it as an opportunity to try to tell people: Look, you know, scientists do science for many of the same reasons that professionals do their profession. We do it because we love it. We enjoy it. We're not motivated by politics. Of course we have politics, just let everyone else, but it's not driving or science. IRA FLATOW, host: You know, when you poll children, and you ask them who they really admire - doctors, scientists, engineers like that - they come out on top. What happens somewhere down the line? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, I don't know if you - you know, if you polled them today, I don't think it would be any different. I think what's happening here is just the early phase of an attempt by special interests in their sort of larger-scale campaign to disinform the American public about climate. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): One of the things they're trying to do is discredit scientists by claiming that scientists are driven by their politics. IRA FLATOW, host: And why is that? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Why do they claim that? IRA FLATOW, host: Well, why is there this divide, I guess? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, are you asking why is there a divide amongst politicians about their - the extent to which they believe climate science? IRA FLATOW, host: Well, I'm asking why - yes. Why are not carbon dioxide molecules carbon dioxide molecules and facts about them, you know? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, you know, I wish I knew the answer to that question. And if you - there have been all kinds of polls of the American adult public on the degree of their belief in the theory of evolution. And somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of American adults just plain don't believe the theory of evolution in any form. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Now to the best of my knowledge, this is not really a political issue, it's a scientific issue, and yet there are all these people who don't believe one of the cornerstone theories of biology. I am completely at a loss to explain that. IRA FLATOW, host: And when did you see the - speaking of global warming, you know, we can go back ages, and, you know, at least 80, 100 years, going back to the Scopes trial about evolution. But what was it about climate change or global warming that created the divide? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Oh, I think money did. I mean, there's not a whole lot of money riding on the outcome of a debate about evolution, but there certainly is about the debate about climate change. And you have lots and lots of organizations and people that perhaps stand to lose a lot of money or think they stand to lose a lot of money if people start getting serious about doing something about the climate. IRA FLATOW, host: You don't think that it may have gone back to Ronald Reagan taking the solar panels off the White House roof or... Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): No, I don't think so. IRA FLATOW, host: Anything like that, making a statement, separating his party, his conservative philosophy, from the liberal Jimmy Carter that came before him? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, of course, it certainly isn't the first time in history that politicians have tried to use science or combat science to further their politics. I think what's different about this is the extent of it and the sort of new business about claiming that the scientists, the overwhelming majority of scientists either don't know what they're talking about or are basically carrying on politics by another means. IRA FLATOW, host: Do you think that science and global warming, and science is going to go on trial in this Congress? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, I hope not. I sort of harbor the idea that most of the people, among those you quoted, most of the Republican politicians who publicly claim they don't believe this, I think they must private harbor doubts about this. And it may just be that they're grandstanding. I don't know. We'll just have to see what happens. IRA FLATOW, host: We've asked almost all of them to come on SCIENCE FRIDAY. You still have an open invitation, if you're listening, to come on and talk about it. But we have yet to get anybody to agree to do that. IRA FLATOW, host: And that is also something new when it comes to talking about science is people are circling their wagons, you know. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Yeah, that's true. I mean, the whole thing has become very fractured, and we live in an age in which information has become very fractured. You know, we used to be, even 20 years ago, most of us in a major city read a common newspaper, or maybe one or two common newspapers. We watched the nightly news. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Now people can go and get reinforced in the opinions they already have, and they're not necessarily being exposed to other opinions, and I think that makes it easier for people to circle the wagons. IRA FLATOW, host: Well, you believe in evolution, you believe in global warming. Does that make you rethink your credentials as a card-carrying conservatives? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, you know, I think most adults have a variety of opinions and that are formed from information and from thinking about it, discussing it with friends and so forth. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): And I like to think that in any particular issue, they've arrived at that from careful deliberation, and it's not preordained by what particular party they happen to belong to. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): I'm very distressed that Republicans, and I have always been a Republican, but I haven't always voted Republican, I'm very distressed that a lot of them are entering this phase of complete denial about the validity of the science. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): There are many issues in climate science that are completely on the table and open for discussion, but to simply deny what countless reputable scientific organizations have asserted is true, namely that we really are changing the climate, is to stick one's head in the sand. IRA FLATOW, host: And how do you feel about people who have changed their opinion, even as the evidence gets stronger, like Senator John McCain, who used to be a great defender of global climate change? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, you know, I think it's perfectly justified to change one's opinion if it's what the evidence warrants. I myself changed my opinion. I mean, back 20 years ago. I said, you know, the evidence really isn't there yet. We really need a lot more before we can say that. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): But 20 years have gone by. A lot more evidence exists now, and I changed my mind about it. I think that's fine. I don't know why anybody in this particular issue would change their mind in the opposite direction. IRA FLATOW, host: And that's really what science is about, isn't it, is the ability to change your view as new evidence becomes... Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): That's right. I mean, you used the word belief a few minutes ago: Do I believe in global warming, I believe in evolution? I think most scientists would shy away from the use of the word belief when it comes to science.�It's a question of what you think the weight of the evidence suggests. IRA FLATOW, host: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. What is interesting is that it's sad to hear that you don't think things are going to change, that you think that things might even get more entrenched. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, they might. I mean, it's impossible to predict how these things might evolve. We might have some real climate catastrophes over the next few years which may be blamed on global warming, rightly or wrongly, and it might change people's minds. I don't know. But I'm a little bit pessimistic at this point. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. And could - do you think you could ever vote for a climate change denial? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): My feeling is that at this point in history, if a politician simply denies that there's any human influence in the climate, in face of all the evidence, it so much casts doubt on that person's ability to weigh evidence and come to a rational conclusion that I can't see myself voting for such a person, no matter what they say about other issues. IRA FLATOW, host: Michael in Fayette, Alabama. Hi, Michael. MICHAEL (Caller): Good afternoon. I'm the one who used to call on SCIENCE FRIDAY asking about robotics and artificial intelligence from the point of view of cartoonists and toy designers and so forth. My - where we live, I'm really grateful that there are some church denominations who believe in the existence of global warming because, sadly, where we live, religious broadcasting is dominated by conservative protestant talk radio and they are dead set against the existence of global warming. MICHAEL (Caller): My first question is, is there a place for those of us who believe all the -what is it called - evidence that global warming has existed but those of us who doubt that it's necessarily all by manmade causes because of cycles in the atmosphere and temperature over the various centuries? For example, the little ice age during the 1700s, because I know that there is a place for people in the middle ground who believe in a theistic evolution, that it took billions of years but there is a supreme mastermind behind it. But you don't hear that enough in the news media. And is there a place for those who have a middle road on global warming? MICHAEL (Caller): Second, and then I'll hang up and let you all answer, has anybody every considered how credible the people are who finance and fund both sides and those who advocate it? Remember, it's the fossil fuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute who financed the skepticism on global warming, no matter how many scientists they hire. MICHAEL (Caller): Michael - and on the other side, even though I vote like Michael Moore - you ought to see his - I've heard about his mansion, how rude he is to some people who try to interview him. Al Gore had a scandal recently. And 20 years ago or so when there was a big environmental - movement return around 1990, it was largely paraded around, glorified by celebrities who don't - who didn't have all of their facts straight. Celebrities, whether a political issue or non -apolitical, nonprofit sharing... IRA FLATOW, host: All right. MICHAEL (Caller): ...to be icing on the cake, not the whole (unintelligible). IRA FLATOW, host: I want to get your answer... MICHAEL (Caller): Thanks big time and I'll hang up and let you answer. IRA FLATOW, host: You're very welcome. IRA FLATOW, host: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow on - with Kerry Emanuel. Kerry, any - can you answer that gentleman? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Yeah. Actually, I'm very glad with the question. There - if you look at the last hundred years of climate history, almost all climate scientists see the operation of all kinds of influences on climate, even something as simple as a global mean temperature, conceptually simple. Volcanoes influence it. Changing sunlight influences it, greenhouse gases, which are manmade and also manmade aerosols. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): So if you want to look at the climate of last hundred years, there's no simple solution that you could put on a bumper sticker that says it was this or that. It's really only in the last 30 years that the CO2 signal has emerged from the natural variability of the background. You have to take into account both because they're both going on. It's not either-or. IRA FLATOW, host: But the signal is strong enough that it sticks out from the background. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, that's right. And the signal is strong enough and that coupled with just very elementary theory, theory that goes back to the end of the 19th century - I mean, there were predictions at the end of the 19th century that burning fossil fuels would warm the climate. I think there's a false notion that everything we understand about it depends simply upon time series of temperature and upon enormous black box computer models. That isn't true. There's very, very elementary, well-tested, well-understood theory behind this as well. IRA FLATOW, host: And if we're having CO2 levels higher than we've seen and they're rising, and CO2 is known as a greenhouse gas, that's sort of a fact that's hard to deny. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Absolutely. And so we have several lines of evidence. We have the actual temperature records. We have computational models and we have theory, and they all point in the same direction. And that gives us confidence that we're seeing signal. Where most of the uncertainty lies is going forward. And there is a lot of uncertainty. And everybody in the field, I think, that I know of is completely open and honest about that. So you have a spectrum of possible outcomes... IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): ...that range from the benign to the catastrophic and everything in between. And so there's plenty for fodder for politicians. But what we cannot do is simply deny that there is any possibility of risk here. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. And yet, you have an incredibly cold winter like this and the snowstorms and you'll have deniers saying, look, you see, this is global warming? Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well... IRA FLATOW, host: And they use that as evidence against... Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I mean, April 30th here in Boston can easily be colder than April 1st. But nobody would use that fact to deny that summer is coming. And it's that same problem. We have weather noise. We have the signal of the annual march of the seasons. And, you know, we've got both going on. IRA FLATOW, host: And so it comes down to whether you want to keep an open mind about things or you're not - just going to deny any of the evidence that somebody might give you. IRA FLATOW, host: I think it's actually what it boils down to. It's an open mind. Let's look at the evidence, weigh it. And what we're faced with is a problem, a very colossal problem of risk assessment and management. We've got to look at it that way. IRA FLATOW, host: Being a conservative, do you think you can get any of your conservative friends to join you in this... Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Well, I think I have. I think there are institutions, the American Enterprise Institution comes to mind, who take this problem seriously. One of the things that conservatives are in danger of doing is if they simply deny that there's any problem at all they have automatically opted out of the conversation about what the solutions to the problems are going to be. And what they're going to do is to find that solutions to these problems or are going to be dictated by the other side of the aisle. And they may not like that at all. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): So as soon as they stop denying that we might have a problem and start participating in the discussion about how we go about dealing with it, the better off we'll all be. IRA FLATOW, host: Thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. Professor KERRY EMANUEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology): You're quite welcome. IRA FLATOW, host: Kerry Emanuel is a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology there in Cambridge. IRA FLATOW, host: We're going to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to switch gears and talk with Mike Brown, author of "How I Killed Pluto" - and listen to this, the other part of the title - "Why It had it Coming." IRA FLATOW, host: Stay with us. We'll be right back. We also going to talk about these new planet - the extrasolar planets they've been finding all week. Mike will be able to talk about that with us too. So stay with us. Our number: 1-800-989-8255. Tweet us @scifri, @S-C-I-F-R-I. We'll be right back after this break. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

According to a 2009 Pew survey, only 35 percent of Republicans say they saw solid evidence of global warming, the lowest number of any political group. Climate scientist and conservative Kerry Emanuel discusses why he thinks political views shouldn't sway scientific thinking.

Laut einer Pew-Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2009 geben nur 35 Prozent der Republikaner an, solide Beweise für die globale Erwärmung gesehen zu haben, der niedrigste Wert aller politischen Gruppen. Der Klimawissenschaftler und Konservative Kerry Emanuel erörtert, warum er der Meinung ist, dass politische Ansichten das wissenschaftliche Denken nicht beeinflussen sollten.

根据2009年皮尤调查，只有35%的共和党人说他们看到了全球变暖的确凿证据，这是所有政治团体中人数最少的。气候科学家和保守派克里·伊曼纽尔讨论了为什么他认为政治观点不应该影响科学思维。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Rahm Emanuel is off and then on again in Chicago. Michele Bachmann is off to Iowa and off-camera. And George Allen wants another go in Virginia. It's Wednesday and time for a rerun edition of the Political Junkie. NEAL CONAN, host: Unidentified Man #1: I have the distinguished honor of presenting to you the president of the United States. NEAL CONAN, host: Unidentified Man #2: Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States. NEAL CONAN, host: Unidentified Man #3: ...Speaker, the president of the United States. President RONALD REAGAN: You and I stand on the shoulders of giants. President LYNDON JOHNSON: I will be brief, for our time is necessarily short, and our agenda is already long. President BILL CLINTON: Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong. President GERALD FORD: But today we have a more perfect union than when my stewardship began. President GERALD FORD: President GEORGE H.W. BUSH: The hand remains extended. The sleeves are rolled up. America is waiting. and now we must produce. President GERALD FORD: Unidentified Man #4: Good night, God bless you. NEAL CONAN, host: Every Wednesday, Political Junkie Ken Rudin joins us to review the week in politics. Last night the president tacked toward the middle in the State of the Union. We'll get reactions from the Progressive Caucus and from the Club for Growth. NEAL CONAN, host: The Tea Party delivered its own SOTU response and took the party chairmanship in the first-in-the-nation primary state. A familiar face and a memorable quote resurface in the Virginia Senate race. And good news to report: Representative Gabrielle Giffords' condition has been upgraded to good. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the program, the Akron mom who faces jail time for fudging her address to get her kids into a better school. But first, Political Junkie Ken Rudin joins us here in Studio 3A. And as usual we begin with a trivia question. Hey, Ken. KEN RUDIN: Hi, Neal. I didn't hear Howard Dean's scream in the beginning. I didn't know if this was the right show or not. NEAL CONAN, host: Right show... KEN RUDIN: I thought I was on the wrong show or something. That was, of course, great... NEAL CONAN, host: Moments of the State of the Union address of the past. KEN RUDIN: Of the past. Okay. You mentioned that George Allen says he wants to regain the Senate seat that he lost to Jim Webb back in 2006. Here's the trivia question: Who was the last person to lose a Senate race but win the rematch against the same opponent? NEAL CONAN, host: So if you think you know the answer, the last person to lose a race for the United States but win the rematch against the same opponent, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Of course the winner gets a fabulous no-prize T-shirt. NEAL CONAN, host: But Ken, we talked about George Allen is back. This, well, this was a race that, six years ago or four years ago, I guess, he was a prohibitive favorite to win. KEN RUDIN: He was, and as we say all the time on this broadcast, that he was measuring the drapes for the White House. Many people thought he was among the frontrunners, if not the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. KEN RUDIN: And then in his August rally - and the Democrat, Jim Webb, a former Republican, former Navy secretary, didn't get in the race until February of 2006. The Democrats just couldn't come up with anybody of substantial reputation to run against Allen. KEN RUDIN: And then at this rally in the summer, August of 2006, George Allen had these words to say. Former Senator GEORGE ALLEN (Republican, Virginia): We care about fact, not fiction. So welcome. Let's give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia. NEAL CONAN, host: And that, of course, was a young man of Indian extraction who was working for the Webb campaign, recording everything George Allen had to say at one of his rallies. KEN RUDIN: On a cell phone, and that changed the way that these new reporters can now make campaign news, just by the use of a cell phone. KEN RUDIN: So basically that once enormous lead dwindled to nothing. Allen lost in an upset. And now he's back. Now, the problem is, is that the Republican Party has changed since 2006. KEN RUDIN: It's moved much more to the right. He now has a Tea Party challenger by the name of Jamie Radtke, who says that George Allen is nowhere near conservative enough, he was soft on earmarks, soft on Bush spending excesses, and Eric Ericson(ph) of redstate.com is one of the people who has endorsed Radtke. KEN RUDIN: So it looks like this could very well be a rematch, but we still don't know what Jim Webb is going to do. Webb has not announced. He's not raised that much money. He said he'll announce one way or the other next couple of months. KEN RUDIN: Just one thing to update, another rematch people have been talking about in Missouri - Jim Talent against Claire McCaskill. Talent is now telling people he will not run. Ann Wagner, one of the finalists of the RNC chair race a couple of weeks ago, is the likely Republican candidate for that seat. NEAL CONAN, host: But speaking of the Tea Party, the chair of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress, Michele Bachmann, delivered the Tea Party State of the Union response message last night. We're going to be talking about the president and his message a little bit later in the program. But this was interesting. KEN RUDIN: Well, it is absolutely, and the fact is there was another Republican. I mean, there was a Republican response, and that was Paul Ryan, the congressman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. But the Tea Party Express went to Michele Bachmann, said, look, we want you to do a rebuttal as well. KEN RUDIN: And so she spoke to this - well, it was actually kind of interesting because CNN decided to broadcast it, and that's a very controversial decision, and if we have time, I'd love to talk about that. KEN RUDIN: But again, Michele Bachmann was looking at the Tea Party camera feed, not the CNN camera feed. So it looked like she was, like, off-camera. It was kind of an odd thing to watch last night. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we'll get back to Michele Bachmann in just a minute. But first we've got to talk about the mayoral race in Chicago, which is turning into - well, and a very appealing story. KEN RUDIN: Well, yes, appeal is exactly the word. Of course we all heard that on Monday an appellate court panel, by a two-to-one vote, decided that Rahm Emanuel did not live in the city of Chicago for the - did not reside in the city of Chicago for the past year as state law mandates -and he didn't. He was working as President Obama's chief of staff. He was living in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Now, wait a minute. So Abraham Lincoln finishes his second term and wants to run for mayor of Springfield. He's ineligible? KEN RUDIN: Well, you know, the president is different and Congress is different. But this is - it's one thing to be a congressman and live in Washington. It's another thing to take a job outside of Congress, which is what he did. KEN RUDIN: You remember a few years ago, John Breaux wanted to run for governor of Louisiana, but they felt that because he was a lobbyist in Washington for five years, he was not a resident of Louisiana, as state law says. KEN RUDIN: So yes, state law seems to be against Rahm Emanuel's better interests, but most people feel that there's no way that they're going to push Rahm Emanuel off the ballot. Yesterday the Supreme Court said: Do not print any ballots without Rahm Emanuel's name on it. We're going to take this up very, very soon. Yesterday the Supreme Court said: Early balloting begins as early as Monday. So obviously there's a lot of - there's an urgency to this. NEAL CONAN, host: Another state law in Illinois says you can't be penalized for going to work for the federal government, and apparently some say that only applies if you're a member of the military, but maybe working at the White House, well, that should be combat pay too. KEN RUDIN: Well, I think the feeling is they've never really clamped down on this kind of language. We saw in New Jersey, when Torricelli dropped out, and there was a replacement at the last minute, the courts said even though the law says no, we'll let it stand. Most likely Rahm Emanuel stays on the ballot. NEAL CONAN, host: We have some people on the line who think they know the answer to this week's trivia question, and again, that is if we should have a rerun in Virginia, previous to that, who was the last United States senator to lose... KEN RUDIN: The last person. NEAL CONAN, host: The last person. KEN RUDIN: To lose a Senate race. NEAL CONAN, host: And then run again against the same person. KEN RUDIN: And beat that person. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Mary Ellen(ph), calling us from Medway, Massachusetts. MARY ELLEN (Caller): Hi, I'm a big fan of the show. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, thank you. MARY ELLEN (Caller): My guess is Al Franken. NEAL CONAN, host: Al Franken, who - well, it might have seemed like six years that recount took, but... KEN RUDIN: Well, actually, no. I mean, Al Franken only ran for the Senate once, and that was in 2008, and when he beat Norm Coleman. Norm Coleman did lose for an earlier race, but there was no rematch there. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for the call, Mary Ellen, and for the kind words. Now, let's go next to - this is Eric(ph), and Eric with us from Birmingham. ERIC (Caller): I'm going to say Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. KEN RUDIN: Well, let's see. NEAL CONAN, host: She ran against Joe Miller. KEN RUDIN: It's hard to make that case as a rematch. ERIC (Caller): But it happened. KEN RUDIN: It was - I think, well... ERIC (Caller): Come on, let me get a T-shirt. KEN RUDIN: You know what? I'm not going to give it to him because it's just... ERIC (Caller): Oh, come on. NEAL CONAN, host: Did she run against Joe Miller before? KEN RUDIN: Who was the last person to lose a Senate race in a general election... ERIC (Caller): You didn't say general election. NEAL CONAN, host: (Unintelligible) KEN RUDIN: Well, okay. I don't want to end this contest, but maybe he does get a T-shirt. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, you get a T-shirt for being clever, Eric, but not for the right answer. KEN RUDIN: For outsmarting me. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, for outsmarting Ken. If we're going to make the bar that low, it's going to be a lot of T-shirts, Ken. All right, we're going to put you on hold, Eric. You're going to get a T-shirt. KEN RUDIN: So the last person to lose a Senate race in a general election -oh, I hate Eric, but he's right - but to win the rematch against the same opponent in a general election. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Marty(ph), Marty with us from Cleveland. MARTY (Caller): Well, I was going to say it was in the '70s. Metzenbaum beat Glen in a special election to replace Saxby, but then in the next, in the regular election, Glen beat Metzenbaum, but I believe that was in the primary, not the general. KEN RUDIN: That was in the primary. That's exactly right. But Glen beat Metzenbaum - Metzenbaum beat Glen in the '70 primary, and then the results were reversed in 1974, but those were the primaries. NEAL CONAN, host: So, and it wouldn't have been the last person in any event. KEN RUDIN: Not the last person in any event. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Marty, thanks very much for the call, and let's see if we can go next to - this is Stephanie(ph) and Stephanie with us from Manchester in New Hampshire, the state that has the first-in-the-nation primary. STEPHANIE (Caller): So my guess is Jeanne Shaheen, who was just recently elected to the Senate, having beaten John Sununu and having lost to him in 2002. KEN RUDIN: That is correct. NEAL CONAN, host: Ding, ding, ding. KEN RUDIN: The answer right there. NEAL CONAN, host: Congratulations, Stephanie. We're going to put you on hold and collect your particulars, as well as Eric's. NEAL CONAN, host: And then both of you are going to have to promise to send us a digital picture of yourself wearing your brand new Political Junkie no-prize T-shirt. STEPHANIE (Caller): I'll do that, and she's my mom. So I'm particularly proud of her and happy that she won. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, I'm not - wait a minute, families of those - of course you're eligible, Stephanie. Thanks very much for the phone call, appreciate it. KEN RUDIN: Gee, how'd she know the answer to that? NEAL CONAN, host: I don't know. KEN RUDIN: By the way, just for history's sake, the one before that - Robert Taft beat Howard Metzenbaum in 1970, reversed in 1976 in Ohio. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. In the meantime, New Hampshire has elected, the Republican Party there, a Tea Partier as the party chairman. Could that make an effect when the first-in-the-nation primary rolls around in a couple of years? KEN RUDIN: Well, John Sununu, not the John Sununu who lost and beat Jeanne Shaheen, but John Sununu's father, the former governor who was the outgoing Republican state chairman in New Hampshire, said, look, you know, Jack Kimball, this Tea Party guy, is - we're going to lose the independent vote in New Hampshire, which is so crucial to our success, if you elect this Tea Party guy. KEN RUDIN: Jack Kimball, though, was elected over the Republican establishment in a vote Friday. Now, a lot of people don't know Jack Kimball, but we will know his name pretty soon because, as you say, it looks like February 14th, St. Valentine's Day 2012, will be the New Hampshire primary, and as Josh Rogers(ph) of New Hampshire Public Radio reported this weekend, as Jack Kimball is taking congratulations and talking to the press about claiming victory, he gets a cell phone call from Tim Pawlenty. So Jack Kimball will be a very familiar name. Why are you making the face? NEAL CONAN, host: I was just going to say: But does the party chairman traditionally play a big part in the Republican primary? KEN RUDIN: No. As a matter of fact, a lot of people, John Sununu, a lot of people are saying you've got to stay neutral because there are going to be a lot of factions in the Republican Party, which looks like a wide open race for 2012. They're afraid that Tea Party people will only back Tea Party-backed candidates. NEAL CONAN, host: We'll talk more with Political Junkie Ken Rudin in a minute. And up next, more reaction to the State of the Union from the right and the left. Congresswoman Judy Chu and former Congresswoman Chris Chocola join us. Stay with us. KEN RUDIN: Congressman. NEAL CONAN, host: Did I say congressman? I was so worried about the Chocola. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Im Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken Rudin is with us, as he is every Wednesday afternoon. In the interest of bipartisanship and civility, we'll skip anything disparaging about him today. I think I already passed that. But it's game on next week. You can read Ken's column, download his podcast and take a shot at the ScuttleButton puzzle, all that at npr.org/junkie. NEAL CONAN, host: Last night, President Obama stayed firmly in the center with his State of the Union message. He called for a corporate tax overhaul, pleasing conservatives. He also called for new spending on infrastructure and education, which made many on the left happy. We'll get reactions from the Progressive Caucus and from the Club for Growth in just a moment. NEAL CONAN, host: So Democrats, Republicans, if you listened to the speech last night, did you hear what you wanted to hear? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Join the conversation at our website, npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: Joining us now from Capitol Hill is Congresswoman Judy Chu, a Democrat who represents California's 32nd District. Congresswoman, thanks very much for being with us today. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Thank you for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: And you're a leader of the Progressive Caucus. Are you worried the president tacked too far to the right? Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): I actually felt that President Obama set the right tone for turning our country around. I totally agree that we must out-educate, out-innovate and out-build other countries in order to maintain our economic global leadership. NEAL CONAN, host: And as you listen to him, I know one of your great concerns, and among those of many in the Democratic Party, is Social Security. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Yes, it is a great concern. But I do believe that he is committed to ensuring that Social Security maintains its viability and that it's strengthened, actually, in terms of its long-term survival. NEAL CONAN, host: Nevertheless, the president made it clear that programs supported by both parties are going to be on the chopping block. Let's listen to what he had to say. President BARACK OBAMA: So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. President BARACK OBAMA: Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. President BARACK OBAMA: This freeze will require painful cuts. NEAL CONAN, host: Painful cuts. What kind of painful cuts do you think the president was talking about last night? Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Well, this is the one part of the speech that I was concerned about. I want to see what he means, and I also want to see what the impact is of this five-year freeze on the most vulnerable in our population. I know he said that they would not be hurt, but I wonder what that really means. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, what, for you, would be off the board? Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Well, I could not see huge cuts that would leave the most vulnerable without health care in particular. Some of our critical programs, make sure that our people are fed, for instance food stamp programs. But what does he mean with regard to those kinds of programs? NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: Congresswoman, the simplistic - the view in Washington, perhaps simplistic, is that President Obama is looking at the role of Bill Clinton in 1996, moving more to the center because that's the way to win re-election, he has Bill Daley as chief of staff, things like that. Do you buy that argument? Do you see that happening? And if you do see it happening, have you heard complaints from fellow progressives? Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Well, I think President Obama is being very pragmatic. He doesn't want to just hear himself talk. He wants results. And the proposals that he suggested last night do just that. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): He is particularly pragmatic because he has a split Congress, and he also has an American public that is conflicted. So the whole point of last night was compromise. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): I thought that the interesting thing was that he talked a lot about a Democratic agenda but one that he couched in centrist terminology. For instance, he didn't use the word climate change or cap and trade. They talked about 80 percent of America's electricity coming from clean energy sources in just 25 years. It's that sort of thing that I saw that gave me hope. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can get a caller in. This is Nicholas(ph), Nicholas with us from Cambridge in Massachusetts. And did you hear what you wanted to hear last night in the State of the Union message? NICHOLAS (Caller): Hi, Neal. You know, I heard President Obama talk a lot about education and a lot about financing education and a lot about community colleges receiving a lot of funding for education. NICHOLAS (Caller): But one thing that I think I wanted to hear that I didn't was just his position on providing funding to those who want to stay in college but can't because their colleges aren't willing to provide the rest of the bill. And they expect their parents, who really can't afford it either, to put forth money that they don't necessarily have. NICHOLAS (Caller): And I really wanted to hear him talk about this in direct terms, as the previous person was just speaking about. And he used centrist terminology that really wasn't a nexus between the students and the rest of the government. NEAL CONAN, host: So you wanted specifics on the cost of college education and on government subsidies? NICHOLAS (Caller): Precisely and not necessarily subsidies but also including laws and regulations that would admonish the universities and colleges to assist in the payment of tuition and living costs so as to ensure that students actually graduate from college. NEAL CONAN, host: Congresswoman Chu, we had a lot of generalities about education. Nicholas wanted more specifics. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Well, I actually thought that he addressed a particularly great step forward that we took, which was to take the profit that banks were making off of student loans, and we put that whole program into the federal government, resulting in lower interest fees on student loans, as well as more money for Pell grants. NICHOLAS (Caller): And that was certainly a great idea, and I think the president did a good job of describing that. However, I really don't think that he actually stepped forward to articulate how that would lower the cost of college education for the average American or the average American family. NEAL CONAN, host: Nicholas, thanks very much for the phone call. We appreciate it. NEAL CONAN, host: Congresswoman Chu, I just wanted to move to another subject, and that was the Bush tax cuts. The president again reiterated that those for the wealthiest Americans should not be permanent. Of course, he extended them for two years in December as part of the deal with congressional Republicans. This is something that progressives still find sticking in their craw. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): That is true, and I think we were very heartened to hear him say that we cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, how are you going to make that fight again when the president's already backed down on it once? Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Well, he did make a pretty affirmative statement there in the speech, and we need to have faith that he will hold to that. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Congresswoman Chu, thanks very much for your time today, and we appreciate it. Representative JUDY CHU (Democrat, California): Thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: Judy Chu is a Democrat who represents the 32nd District of California, vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and joined us from her office on Capitol Hill. We appreciate her time, particularly they're voting today on Capitol Hill, so it's been difficult for her to squeeze us in. NEAL CONAN, host: With us now on the line is Republican Chris Chocola, the former representative from the 2nd District of Indiana from 2003 to 2007, now the head of the Club for Growth. And Congressman, thanks very much for your time today. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): It's good to be with you, thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: And Chris Chocola, did the president march to the middle enough to get your support last night? Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Well, you know, I guess it depends on your perspective. If you don't think that we have an impending fiscal crisis in our future, then I guess, you know, not talking about entitlement reform, not endorsing any of his own debt commission recommendations, talking about freezing spending at historically high levels is fine. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): But if you believe that we do have an economic crisis looming in our future and that the real issues are the size of the deficit, the size of the debt, the size of government and the burden it puts on our economy, then I don't think there's any kind of view that would say the president went to the middle. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): He talked about more government. He talked about more investment. He talked really in a way that he doesn't think there's a crisis at all. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): So I think he missed an opportunity to be straight with the American people, to talk about the challenges that we face as a country and that we must meet together, but he really missed the opportunity. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): He used some nice words, that's great, but, you know, in the end, State of the Union speeches are big events, but they're not really remembered. And so I think that this will really be kind of an inconsequential speech, ultimately. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, as part of it, he did promise, and we're going to hear a clip from the president's address last night, he did promise to revamp the tax code. President BARACK OBAMA: So tonight, Im asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system, get rid of the loopholes, level the playing field and use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years without adding to our deficit. It can be done. NEAL CONAN, host: A simpler tax code and lower corporate taxes, presumably you would applaud that, as well. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Well, like anything, the devil's in the details. Those are all great platitudes. Those are all, I guess, general ideas that we could agree on, you know, his little caveat at the end being, I forget what he says, revenue neutral or not increasing the deficit, is good, as well. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): But it all depends on what you're really proposing as tax reform. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): As you know, there are several different ideas out there. We at The Club for Growth would advocate a pro-growth solution to tax reform, but that's not, at least historically what the president would chair. You know, I don't think the president moved to the middle last night. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): I'm not being critical of him. I thought he gave a fine speech, but he is who he is. And one of the things that you had to admire about Barack Obama is that he believes what he believes. He doesn't waiver in his beliefs, and he articulates his beliefs well most of the time. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): But last night, I think as a result of the 2010 election, as the congresswoman said before I came on, he's now using different words to describe the same things. And so, I don't think he's changed his view. He's changed his language in light of the political environment. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): But, you know, I think that he did miss an opportunity to be straight with the American people about the challenges we face, but maybe he doesn't believe that we have the crisis that I think the voters believe we have, as they expressed at the polls in November. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to a caller, and this is Mark. Mark with us from Charleston in South Carolina. MARK (Caller): Yes. How are you doing there? NEAL CONAN, host: Very well, thanks. MARK (Caller): Well, Mr. Chocola, I want to thank you for your service to our country. I formerly served as an intern in a senator's office, and I know it's not an easy job being a congressman. So I appreciate your service. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Thank you. MARK (Caller): But as far as the State of the Union Address goes last night, I was very intrigued when I heard the president say that he wanted to essentially dissolve and merge some federal departments, and that was good for me. I'm a traditionalist Republican, and I'm not for, exactly, big government, but I'm not for no government, either. And, well, for me, as a Republican, that was good for me, 'cause I think the federal government is a bit larger than I'd like it to be. NEAL CONAN, host: Congressman? Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Well, there's no question, you know, the president used his smoked salmon analogy which was one of the more humorous parts of the speech, obviously. But, you know, there are probably endless opportunities to eliminate redundancy in government. Really the waste, fraud and abuse is criminal that goes on at every level of government. And you can look at every agency, including defense. There's wasteful spending at every level. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): And so - but, you know, waste, fraud and abuse and eliminating redundancy are words that every politician of every party has used throughout time. And so, really, with these types of speeches, it's more important to see what happens - what people do rather than what they say. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): And so I think the proof is in the pudding. I think really that one of the biggest questions is - what - not whether President Obama has moved to the center, but what are the Republicans going to do? Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): And, you know, I think Paul Ryan did a fine job last night in his response. I think he did lay out some of the challenges that we face, but it ultimately is what is the Republican majority in the House going to do. And I think the most important thing that they can do is to frame the debate, so people will understand the choice they have and when they vote for president in 2012, which I think is a rare thing that people understand the consequence of their vote very clearly. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): I think 1980 was one of those votes. I think 2012 could be one of those votes. And then, we'll see what they do because for us to get real change, I think we're going to have to have a different president that will embrace the challenges that we face and actually address them seriously in the State of the Union Address rather than talk in platitudes and try to find language that we can all agree on rather than the actions that we can all agree on. NEAL CONAN, host: Mark, thanks very much for the call. MARK (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And we're listening to the Political Junkie, and this is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let me reintroduce our guest. Chris Chocola, the former Republican representative from Indiana, now president of The Club for Growth. Ken? KEN RUDIN: Mr. Chocola, following up on the political conversation, we just - you just seemed to allude to, it seems like if you look at it the polling numbers - and, of course, polling numbers could change and they have been changing - but we do seem to see since the lame-duck session and since the horrific events in Tucson, the president's numbers moving up and some uncertainty among Republicans. Do you think that that is indicative of what the political situation is? Do you think that'll last? And a sidebar, what do you make of the Michele Bachmann decision to have her up as a speaker yesterday as well? Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Well, you know, polling is polling, and it reflects a moment in time, and those times change. And so, you know, I think the president did a very good job in response to the tragedy in Tucson. I think he gave, you know, a very inspiring speech, and I think you'll see reaction to that with the public. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): With Michele Bachmann, you know, it was her decision to do that. She certainly has the right to do that. She certainly has a role to play and a voice, and she delivers that voice very effectively. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): And so I think the Tea Party movement wants to be relevant in government, and one of the great things about the Tea Party movement is it is regular citizens trying to figure out how do they participate in good government. And so certainly I'm not going to be critical on any effort to do that, to have a voice in the direction our country goes is a very good thing. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): And so polls are polls. And the Tea Party I think is strong and effective, but, you know, two years from now is a long time. And, you know, that's going to be the more relevant information at that time. NEAL CONAN, host: Congressman, thanks very much for your time today. Mr. CHRIS CHOCOLA (Former Representative, Republican, Indiana): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Chris Chocola, former Republican representative from Indiana, now president of The Club for Growth. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's some emails. One from Charles(ph) in Birmingham. The president failed to win the hearts and minds of the America people once again. Democratic strategists around the country believe this is a contest for voters in the middle of the political spectrum, but they fail to see that they have to appeal to middle class, working class Americans and convince them that we, the Democrats, are on their side. President Obama is miserable at this. He comes across as lecturing to a class, not connecting to his fellow Americans. NEAL CONAN, host: This from Eugene(ph) in Miami. What I heard was what I expected. The general tenor was much like the speeches that preceded these. It gave the country hope, but was lean on specifics. President Obama is an extraordinary orator so he gets a huge bump in style points, but every speech by every president will contain two things. It will offer hope when the collective mood is one of hopelessness, and it will lack specifics. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken, I know you specifically wanted to talk about what you asked Congressman Chocola about, and that was Michele Bachmann and the decision by CNN to run her reply. KEN RUDIN: Well, it seems interesting. First of all, though, I've heard criticism from the left saying that basically what you're doing is you're giving two opposing voices to respond to President Obama, which is very unusual. KEN RUDIN: And Republicans are complaining that by putting Michele Bachmann right after Paul Ryan, you're splitting the Republican opposition and making them look more disunified than ordinarily would be the case. KEN RUDIN: But we should also point out that the Tea Party and CNN are going to host a Labor Day presidential candidates debate in Tampa this September. So perhaps maybe CNN was trying to curry favor with the Tea Party. But I just thought it was unusual to see two opposing rebuttals, two rebuttals to the president's State of the Union. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken Rudin, NPR's political editor. You can read his Political Junkie column and download his poscast and... KEN RUDIN: Podcast. NEAL CONAN, host: Podcast. And even if you dare try to solve his scuttle button puzzle, all at npr.org/junkie. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken, we'll talk to you again next week. KEN RUDIN: Thanks, Neal.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) provides her take on President Obama's second State of the Union speech, and former Republican Rep. Chris Chocola offers his perspective on whether the president's call to reform corporate taxes is just window dressing. Ken Rudin, political editor, NPR Rep. Chris Chocola, former Republican congressman from Indiana Rep. Judy Chu, (D-CA)

Repräsentantin Judy Chu (D-CA) erläutert ihre Sicht auf Präsident Obamas zweite Rede zur Lage der Nation, und der ehemalige republikanische Repräsentant Chris Chocola erklärt, ob der Aufruf des Präsidenten zur Reform der Unternehmenssteuern nur Augenwischerei ist. Ken Rudin, politischer Redakteur, NPR\nRep. Chris Chocola, ehemaliger republikanischer Kongressabgeordneter aus Indiana\nRep. Judy Chu, (D-CA)

众议员赵美心（加州民主党）表达了她对奥巴马总统第二次国情咨文演讲的看法。总统呼吁改革企业税是否只是表面文章，前共和党众议员克里斯·乔克拉就此发表了自己的看法。肯·鲁丁， 国家公共电台政治编辑\众议员克里斯·乔克拉，前印第安纳州共和党众议员\众议员赵美心(加州民主党 )

TALK OF THE NATION: small and red, with tight steps in front and windows so small you'd think they were holding their breath. Bricks are crumbling in places, and the front door is so swollen, you have to push hard to get in. The house has only one washroom. Everybody has to share a bathroom, a bedroom, Mama and Papa, Carlos and Kiki, me and Nenny. TALK OF THE NATION: "The House on Mango Street" became a classic and made Cisneros a pioneer, perhaps the best-known female Mexican-American writer. TALK OF THE NATION: David Rice grew up in the Rio Grande Valley and focuses his stories on the people and towns he's known all his life. Both writers provide Chicanos an opportunity to recognize themselves in the pages of books that address the highs and lows of both belonging and not belonging. TALK OF THE NATION: Today, Sandra Cisneros and author David Rice. Later, the mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro. TV: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. TV: Sandra Cisneros joins us from the studios of member station KSTX. TV: And nice to have you with us today. SANDRA CISNEROS: Thank you for inviting me. SANDRA CISNEROS: : And it's been almost 30 years since "The House on Mango Street." Do you think Esperanza's experience would be different now? SANDRA CISNEROS: Oh, I think the situation's gotten worse for Esperanza, I'm sorry to say. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Worse. And how do you say that? SANDRA CISNEROS: I say that because, you know, when I wrote that book, I wrote it from someplace, a very optimistic young women in her early 20s, hoping things would get better in the United States for people of Mexican descent. But, you know, I could never dream what would happen post-9/11 and with the community being under siege as it is right now with Mexican people really being vilified at this time of American history. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Mm-hmm. And so Esperanza, of course, means hope in Spanish. Might you have chosen a different name for your character? SANDRA CISNEROS: Yeah, I still am filled with hope. I'm 56 now, and I have a different kind of view of the world, but I'm still optimistic and filled with hope, or I wouldn't be here today. SANDRA CISNEROS: : And you now live in San Antonio. You grew up in Chicago. Tell us a little bit about the differences between those two places. SANDRA CISNEROS: Well, you know, I grew up where you could get on a bus and hear someone speaking, you know, Russian and someone speaking Spanish and someone with a twang from the Appalachia - I mean, all these different languages and dialects going on. SANDRA CISNEROS: And I just assumed that the whole world was very global in that sense, that, you know, communities might not get along, but they had to live with each other, like it or not. SANDRA CISNEROS: And, you know, it's so different coming here to San Antonio, where it's predominately - the majority of people that live here have Spanish language as an inherited language. Maybe they are not that proficient, or some are. And, you know, so you see the Spanish language in more public spaces, on advertising, and you hear it in the next booth at the restaurant. SANDRA CISNEROS: And even the people who aren't of Mexican origin know a little bit of Spanish or know quite a good deal about the culture, just from generations of living here. Because, obviously, this was Mexico before it was the United States. SANDRA CISNEROS: : I want to ask you the same question we're asking our callers today: Are there places where - other than your own books, of course - you recognize your experience and people like you, in books and movies on TV? SANDRA CISNEROS: Are you asking me? SANDRA CISNEROS: : Yeah. SANDRA CISNEROS: Well, I think I wrote "House" precisely because I wanted to give my truth, my version. At the time that I wrote "House," in the - around the end of the '70s and the early '80s, I was reading Chicano literature written by men. And a lot of the literature that was coming to me was written by people in the Southwest. SANDRA CISNEROS: I didn't have the urban experience. If I read about the urban experience of Latinos, it might be the Nuyorican experience. And I felt that it was a very different world than mine, especially a different reality written by men. And I wanted to write about the woman's point of view of living in the barrio. SANDRA CISNEROS: There seemed to be a glorification of the barrio by the men, and I felt that there was issues in the barrio that I wanted to bring to light, that I needed to bring to light - not only for my own story, but I was a high school teacher. I was a very powerless highs school teacher at an alternative high school, and the girls I was teaching, their stories resonated with me to such a degree that I had to do something so I could fall asleep at night. SANDRA CISNEROS: And I started weaving their stories into a neighborhood I remembered from my past, and that's how "House" came about. I truly wanted to tell the stories of these young women and my point of view as a woman, too. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Also with us from the studios of KSTX in San Antonio is David Rice, a Chicano writer and filmmaker based in Austin. He's the author of "Give the Pig a Chance" and "Crazy Loco." SANDRA CISNEROS: Nice to have you with us today. DAVID RICE: Thanks for inviting me. DAVID RICE: : And I wanted to ask you the same question we just put to Sandra Cisneros: Are there books, movies - you're a moviemaker and a writer, too, so we'll exclude yours for just a moment - that bring the people you know to life? DAVID RICE: When I was a kid, there was no, that I read, Mexican-American literature or Chicano literature. And so I didn't know it existed until I was 23 years old. I'm 46 now. And I was in a plane on Southwest Airlines, flying, and I read an in-flight magazine that had Rolando Smith-Hinojosa's story about a snowman down in - down in the valley in Mercedes, Texas, where I'm close to. DAVID RICE: And so that's the first time I saw that a Mexican-American could write a story about his or her home. And the Rio Grande Valley where I'm from, head count is only 2,000 people. It's a very small town 18 miles from the border. And so it was very rural. DAVID RICE: And when I read that story, I realized, hey, you know, I could write about my home. And my home does have validation. Where I'm from is important. DAVID RICE: And so that's what gotten me started writing that first story, and then, of course, reading other books. I read Sandra's books. I read Duguel's(ph) books, Gary Soto, Rudolfo Anaya, a bunch of other writers. TALK OF THE NATION: Hey, anyone can write, you know, and just had to sit down and do it. TALK OF THE NATION: : Well, not anybody could write as well as you do. But that's another issue completely. As you talk about it, though, I know you spend time going back to the Rio Grande Valley to teach kids in high school, to work with them, about how to write and how to tell stories about their own lives. DAVID RICE: Well, you know, to be honest, I'm bored with my stories. And I'm bored with Sandra's stories, and I'm bored with Dago's(ph) stories. I'm bored with Mexican-American literature right now. DAVID RICE: And I think that the new writers are coming up, and we have to - and I know Sandra goes to schools, a lot of them. I go to a lot of schools. And we're - we want kids to write their stories. We want them to realize that their family's important, that their culture's important. And they're out there. DAVID RICE: : You know what? Your story's boring. I don't like it. And I go, really? That's great. I think that's - you know what? Let's hear your story. DAVID RICE: And so I'm excited about these schools, you know, producing writers, and that's why I visit these schools, because I'm looking for these writers, and they're out there. DAVID RICE: They're - we're in San Antonio, Texas, right now. They're all around us. They're all over Texas. And so while Sandra's right, we are right now having a tough time as Mexican-Americans in this country, we also have a real moment of showing that we have value - not just in our hard work, but in our storytelling. DAVID RICE: : Sandra, would you agree? SANDRA CISNEROS: Well, I think it's a time where we're not having those opportunities to tell our story. What David is very optimistic about, but not telling you the truth that, you know, he's one, one person. I'm just one person that can go out to the schools, and the demand and requests from the schools is enormous. SANDRA CISNEROS: There aren't enough of us published to go out. And the ones that are publishes are not getting distributed. So it's a difficult task. I feel it every day, that pull of the requests that come to me because the need is so great in the schools, especially since, recently, our Texas Board, you know, removed a lot of us from social studies. A lot of us are getting removed from textbooks. You know, and this is a community that you and I, David, we do this for free when we have time and aren't exhausted, and it never ends. So we need those other writers, but it's a difficult time. SANDRA CISNEROS: We have a high dropout rate. We have young teens getting pregnant. You know, our communities are just hemorrhaging, and you and I are just a little Band-Aid on a corpus that is dying. SANDRA CISNEROS: So we really need to create more writers. I try to do that at this stage in my life by working with professional writers who serve community. I do that with the Macondo Foundation. I bring together writers of all colors. SANDRA CISNEROS: And there are so many of us who have been doing this our whole lives, because there isn't money for us to go out to the schools. There hasn't been money for a long time. SANDRA CISNEROS: There hasn't been programs of poetry in the schools since maybe I was - you know, 25 years ago. And if it wasn't for money like the NEA, I would still be teaching in a high school writing "House on Mango Street" on Saturdays and during my vacation. If I hadn't gotten that NEA grant, I wouldn't have finished that book that now is required reading throughout universities, high schools and middle schools. SANDRA CISNEROS: So I think that, you know, you're overly optimistic. I think it's a difficult, difficult time for publishing, period. It's difficult for writers of color. You and I do everything we can to go out to the schools. We work with younger writers. SANDRA CISNEROS: I know you've been very, very generous. But we do it all, you know, like the Peace Corps. Nobody even knows we're doing this. The president doesn't know we're doing it, and maybe Mayor Julian doesn't know we do this. We do it on our own. SANDRA CISNEROS: And, you know, we get a lot of good karma, but it's very difficult for us to finish our work when we're out there as the foot soldiers. So I think it's important for us to - just like me, you know, I was helped by other writers. I help the younger writers. SANDRA CISNEROS: There were older writers that helped me. There were grants available that are extinct or are going to be shortly extinct, and we have to help that next generation because, like you said, the stories are out there, but who's going to open the doors? You and I - people who love those writers. SANDRA CISNEROS: : David Rice, you cockeyed optimist, you. DAVID RICE: Well, you know - you know, look. We can go on for hours about this, and Sandra's right. Because in the State of Texas, like in Arizona, there is an outright attack to eliminate Chicano studies, you know, from universities and from classrooms. And we're not in the canon. DAVID RICE: So when you go to a high school, teachers often have to sneak in my book to be taught and Sandra's books or Dago's books, and the teacher themselves have to make this effort to bring the book to the classroom. DAVID RICE: So it's not sanctioned by the State of Texas, nor by the school boards. So, yes, there is... SANDRA CISNEROS: Maybe one writer here or there, but, you know... DAVID RICE: Si, uno, dos. Yeah, one or two. For the most part... SANDRA CISNEROS: But for the most part, we're the illegal aliens of American letters. DAVID RICE: Well, in the classroom, for sure. SANDRA CISNEROS: Yes, absolutely, especially in communities where we need to be the most, like here in the Southwest. DAVID RICE: Yes, no, I completely agree. DAVID RICE: : David Rice and Sandra Cisneros, both Chicano writers. They're with us from San Antonio today in the studios of KSTX, Texas Public Radio. We want to hear from Mexican-Americans in our audience. Where do you see people you know, people like you reflected in literature, in books and movies, on TV shows? Give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. DAVID RICE: Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. DAVID RICE: : This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. We're broadcasting today in partnership with KSTX, Texas Public Radio in San Antonio, and we're talking about the Chicano voice in the books we read, the movies and TV shows we watch, and we're talking with two people who help tell those stories. DAVID RICE: Sandra Cisneros's books include - in addition to "The House on Mango Street" - "Loose Woman," "My Wicked, Wicked Ways," and others. David Rice is a writer and filmmaker. His books include "Give the Pig a Chance" and "Crazy Loco." DAVID RICE: Mexican-Americans in the audience, we want to hear from you. Where do you see your life reflected accurately? Books, movies, TV? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. DAVID RICE: And let's go to Corina(ph), Corina with us, calling from Tucson. CORINA: Yes, hello. I just wanted to share, it was very powerful for me to hear, to just come across this particular show. I love your show and especially a show of this subject. CORINA: Growing in Las Cruces, New Mexico, I'm 41 years old, I remember distinctly the power seeing the show "Que Pasa USA" on PBS, because for me, it was the first time I saw people who looked like me. CORINA: And mind you, they weren't speaking the same kind of Spanish or English, with the usage or the cadence that I used growing up in Las Cruces, but it was so powerful to see people like me and say, hey, you know, I could relate to that. CORINA: And it just filled me with a sense of pride that to this day, you know, it remains with me. CORINA: Now, of course, we have George Lopez, and we have so many other shows, and I think there is, there's such a dearth of our stories out there, and I'm glad that this show is being broadcast, because we do, we need to get a fire lit under all of our youth, Latinos, Chicano, Mexican-American, what you might call us, and share our stories. CORINA: : David Rice, did you grow up with "Que Pasa USA"? DAVID RICE: I grew up with "Caros Lindas"(ph), and "Caros Lindas" was a program that was out of Keller U, PBS in Austin, Texas, and was shown in the Valley, and she's right. DAVID RICE: When I was a kid and I saw that, when I saw a Mexican-American's brown skin on television, it really, it changed my perception, because I said, wow, we can be on TV. We can do this. DAVID RICE: And so, you know, going back to this idea of going to schools, you know, we visit all these schools and talk to kids, and we never know. We just don't know. Sandra and I don't know, none of us know, what kid is going to take off. We just don't know. But if we don't go to those schools and put on those programs on television that show Mexican-Americans in a positive light, it won't happen. SANDRA CISNEROS: You know, I'm going to have to interject. I'm older than you and I have to say I wrote my books in a place of real powerlessness. But now that I'm in my 50s, those students come up to me now, and they say: I read your book when I was in middle school, and my counselor told me, you know, I wasn't college material; I'm finishing my degree at UCLA. SANDRA CISNEROS: I have those young women and young men that come up to me now, and they always are with tears in their eyes. And so I cry too, because, you know, that just goes to show you the power of art. And when you make it with your corazon, and when you don't have your ego, your fixed agenda, and you just get out of the way and you do it with light and with love for other people (Spanish spoken) it always comes out good, any work that we do for others with love. SANDRA CISNEROS: And so I know that art makes change, and those artists that don't know that, they need to go out in the community and volunteer and do some really hard work. Roll up your sleeves. SANDRA CISNEROS: Maybe the NEAs ought to be given to people who do community work or to(ph) artists willing to community work, and maybe everybody would be happy about the arts going out because they really are an investment. SANDRA CISNEROS: And I can tell you, I want to give a testimony and an amen, you know, that I have lived long enough and am blessed in my lifetime to see those very many young people, many, come up to me that say this book changed their life. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Corina, thanks very much for the phone call, appreciate it. CORINA: Thank you. CORINA: : Bye-bye. Let's go next to Guillermo, Guillermo with us from Oakland. GUILLERMO: Yes, thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to say congratulations (technical difficulties). My teacher, when I came to this country, my teacher taught us how to learn English with your book and how to write, how to speak, also helped us to graduate. GUILLERMO: : You're talking about "The House on Mango Street"? GUILLERMO: Pardon me? GUILLERMO: : You're talking about "The House on Mango Street"? GUILLERMO: Correct. And I have to say that it encouraged me, give me more hope. It is a way that you can move forward to make your dreams come true. So it helped us (technical difficulties) graduate as a landscape architect and I start my own company. And here I am. (Spanish spoken) SANDRA CISNEROS: Bravo, bravo. That's a beautiful testimonial. I love to hear these stories. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Guillermo, thanks very much for the call, and good luck to you. GUILLERMO: Thank you. GUILLERMO: : It's interesting. Sandra Cisneros, I know you've written about how, I guess unconsciously, some of the patterns of - the vocal patterns and the verbal patterns in you books replicate Spanish. I think it might be easier for people, Spanish-speaking people, to help learn them - teach them to speak English by reading your books. SANDRA CISNEROS: Yes, it's helped quite a few people. And it's also a big hit not just here in the United States but in China and in Germany and in - even in Iran. You know, so many different cultures have been reading the book, and I just think anytime we do any work that we do with our corazon, that we do with our heart, you know, we just stand back. SANDRA CISNEROS: I'm just - had no idea it was going to have that kind of impact globally, and I'm so happy because I feel especially powerless right now at this time in history. I'm looking for my direction. David, you and I know how much work is needed out there, and we're always looking to see how can we be of service, how can we help these communities that are so polarized right now in the United States come to some place that they can hear each other? SANDRA CISNEROS: I think art is that opportunity for communities that are frightened to come together and to be inside each other's skin. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Let's go next to - this is - let's go next to Mario(ph), Mario with us from San Antonio. MARIO: Hi. MARIO: : Go ahead, please. MARIO: My name's Mario Cervantes(ph). Thank you for taking my call. Hi, Sandra. I met you. I go to Our Lady of the Lake University. And I met you I think twice or two times. I'm a dyslexic writer. I write. I've been writing since I was in middle school. And seeing George Lopez on TV has inspired me a lot because he's dyslexic, and it encouraged me to chase after my dreams. MARIO: And Cisneros's books have also encouraged me to chase after my dreams and never stop believing in myself. MARIO: : And... SANDRA CISNEROS: That's wonderful. SANDRA CISNEROS: : That's - congratulations, Mario, and who do you read, other than the guests we've got in the studio there? MARIO: I read other books like (unintelligible) I'm really a poem writer. So I read a lot of poems, more than books. MARIO: : Okay, all right. Thanks very much for the call. And continued good luck. MARIO: Thank you. MARIO: : Here's an email we have from Laura(ph) in Austin: I publish Latinas Magazine, the first digital magazine made by and for young Latinas. How powerful figures like David Rice and Sandra Cisneros are to those girls, whose voice is probably least heard in the U.S. MARIO: The kids are hungry to talk about their culture. We need these forums, and we teach these kids about how to be that voice. MARIO: And I wonder, David Rice, new kinds of forums - you were talking about the difficulties of getting published earlier, are - does the Web provide new opportunities? DAVID RICE: Well, yeah. Well, that's a good question. Well, yes, it does, of course, right. The blogs and what have you and the short-story contests, and you can have your own book online, with classmates of your school. DAVID RICE: But, you know, the thing is to get these kids to write. You know, there was a poster some years ago with Hemingway sitting on a beach, and he's reading a book. And it says: Get caught reading. TALK OF THE NATION: Get caught writing. You know, start writing because, yes, you know, Sandra's right. We have limited access to publishing houses. There's a few out there, but we need more. TALK OF THE NATION: But these kids have to start writing. They have to start really reading and writing. And yes, they'll form their own magazines and their own blocks. Latinas Magazine, by the way, is a very good publication. TALK OF THE NATION: And so, yeah, but you've got to create your own format. You've got to create your own chat books. And then you begin from there. So while there might be some blockades, you know, put there on purpose or not, to keep Mexican-American kids from writing their stories, we have to keep on insisting that they write their stories, because we can then overcome the blockade. SANDRA CISNEROS: You know, David, the whole process of reading and writing, it's like, you know, when you fall in love. I always want young people to fall in love with a book, and it's so hard for the teachers. They have to teach for testing. And there isn't, like, opportunities for young people to get in contact with our books. When I was a small press book, it was a very difficult for readers to find me or to find our books. SANDRA CISNEROS: And I think that the whole process of reading and writing, it's like falling in love. You've got to go out there where people will hang out when you want to fall in love, and you've got to go out there and hang out with the books, go to the library. SANDRA CISNEROS: And, you know, you have to also feel comfortable about picking up a book and finding one where you see yourself. That's why it's so important for us to support the up-and-coming writers so that we can have a variety of stories and voices. SANDRA CISNEROS: You're right, I can't tell everybody's story. You don't tell my story, I don't tell yours. We need other writers publishing alongside with us. And young people need to see themselves in the story, imagine that they can speak and tell a story that is acceptable because most of them feel as if they are not articulate, that the lives they're leading aren't interesting, that they are not valuable. SANDRA CISNEROS: And what I found when I was working with high school dropouts is that they were great oral storytellers but they were intimidated by the page. And it's about people like you and me that go into those schools and transfer that energy of speaking a tale and getting it on paper and giving them permission to tell it the way they talk it. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Let's go next to Andrea, Andrea with us from Davis, California. ANDREA: Hi. The only person that I feel I still connect with is the work of America Ferrera. She is a movie producer and, of course, did "Ugly Betty." ANDREA: : Mm-hmm. ANDREA: Literature-wise, I grew up reading Sandra Cisneros. I - my dad is from Mexico and he raised me to connect with that culture of mine through Chicano literature. But since I've been in my 20s, I don't feel that connection anymore to literature. I don't feel my stories. I don't see the people that I recognize or my story even as someone who's grown up in primarily a white culture in Illinois. My story isn't out there, but I still can reach back through the work of Sandra and Rudolfo Anaya and connect through that. ANDREA: : Is there - are they places you go to look for those stories? Or - you know, obviously, we expect, to some degree, the media to bring them to us, but we can be proactive as well. ANDREA: I've tried every once in a while. But I keep seeing the same - there's a lot of, you know, border literature that I find. But as someone who didn't live there, I grew up around South Dakota and Minnesota. That's not something that I know very well. So I don't see - most Chicano literature kind of steps around that. I haven't seen a really - a growth in the past decade that I've been trying to connect with that literature. I just haven't been able to find it. ANDREA: : Well, David Rice says... SANDRA CISNEROS: Okay, the books are there, but it's a matter of the distribution. A lot of the writers like Belinda Acosta, who comes from Lincoln, Nebraska, of all places, the Chicano writers from the Midwest have anthologies. But they're usually efforts that are created by the writers themselves, and that's always an issue of distribution. ANDREA: Yeah. Well, I look forward to looking for that. ANDREA: : Thanks very... SANDRA CISNEROS: Well, I'll try to mention it on my Web page. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Okay. ANDREA: Wonderful. I'll look it up. Thank you very much. ANDREA: : Andrea, thanks very much for the phone call. This is an email from Nicole in San Antonio. I am not Mexican-American. I am Arab-American. And I want to stress the importance of writers like Sandra Cisneros in paving the way for other brown writers. The Mexican community, in general, has paved the way for other minorities in the United States. So another testimonial there. ANDREA: Sandra Cisneros is our guest. She's a Chicano writer based in San Antonio. The books include "The House on Mango Street," "Caramelo," "Hairs/Pelitos," "Loose Woman," "My Wicked, Wicked Ways" and others. David Rice, he's based in Austin, Texas now, author of "Give the Pig a Chance" and "Crazy Loco." They're both with us at KSTX in San Antonio. ANDREA: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. ANDREA: And let's go next to Gene(ph). Gene with us from Fresno. GENE: Hello, everyone. I love your work. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. My question to you as an educator and as a Chicano is what particular works do you read right now who are actually - fiction or non- fiction who are addressing the idea of all the discrimination that's going on towards Hispanics in the United States? GENE: : David Rice, I wonder if you'd start with that. DAVID RICE: There's a really good short story by Langston Hughes who's African- American. And he wrote a story called "One Friday Morning." It's really, really pretty powerful, and it's about a young woman who wins an art contest. And she's not sure whether she won it because she's an artist or because she has - because she's black. So that story really, to me, you know, really jumps out at telling kids that, you know, you can win no matter what your skin color is. And whenever that story - and I taught high school for a while. And I had 35 stories that I would use, and that was one of them. And then Gary Soto's story, "Being Mean," was another one that I used. DAVID RICE: But because you got to start - when you work with kids, you just can't throw stories at them. There has to be a certain way of difficulty, like start with this story, then this story, then you build up and you build up and you build up. DAVID RICE: And so Langston Hughes' "One Friday Morning" is, you know, a three-page story but really touched a lot of issues and - to me, that story can be used in almost any classroom. And then from there, you jump on to Chicano lit or whatever else. But I like the story a lot. GENE: Yeah. One particular comment: I noticed that several of the works that I'm using in some of my classes are from Japanese-Americans who experienced, you know, the discrimination in the 1940s when they were imprisoned in the United States and their families. So I think much of the same thing is going on in this country right now, when we have whole families who are being taken back to Mexico and their children are being left here. And that's incredibly unfortunate and, you know, horrific. But if I could hear Sandra's response. SANDRA CISNEROS: Well, there is lots of writers that I like. I'm been rereading stories of Christopher Isherwood, "The Berlin Stories," because to me what he's writing about reminds me too much what's happening in the United States because we're in a state of fear. Communities are in a state of fear. And rereading "The Berlin Stories" is haunting for me because I hope we're not going to go in the direction that Germany went to in the '30s. SANDRA CISNEROS: So I read lots of people globally. I am in love with many, many different kinds of writers. I have a Web page where I name the writers that I'm looking at. And sometimes, they're Chicano writers and sometimes they're not, because I think it's a global issue that we're talking about. So we're looking for writers globally that are also writing about similar situations. SANDRA CISNEROS: I'm very fond of the work of San Antonio writer John Phillip Santos. Denise Chavez has also written beautiful books about the experiences in New Mexico. Julia Alvarez, who's a Dominicana, Juan Felipe Herrera, the poet. And I'm a big, big fan of the writing of Louis Rodriguez from East L.A. And he writes extraordinarily beautiful stories about situations of the Mexicans that are - is very current. There are just so many. SANDRA CISNEROS: And, unfortunately, most people don't find it at their bookstore. And unless you know the title, you don't know when you go online where to look for these writers. So I think it's important for David and myself, you know, to put those lists on our Web page so that we can say, these are the writers we recommend and help your independent bookstore by ordering it from your local independents so they don't go under. They're the ones that supported me when I was a chapbook writer in a small press. And they're the ones I want to support now. SANDRA CISNEROS: : We'll end with this email from Linda(ph) in San Antonio. Mexican- American female, where I saw myself on TV and sums up my experience, the best mirror of my life from the film, "Selena," where Edward J. Olmos, who plays the father, is driving the bus and speaking with Selena. He says, in paraphrase, it's hard to be a Mexican-American. You have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans in Mexico, and more American than the Americans. It's exhausting. SANDRA CISNEROS: So we'll end with that. Sandra Cisneros, thank you so much for your time to day. SANDRA CISNEROS: Thank you. SANDRA CISNEROS: : Sandra Cisneros joined us from KSTX in San Antonio. And thanks as well to David Rice, who was also there. David, appreciate your time today. DAVID RICE: Thank you, Neal. DAVID RICE: : Coming up next: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. He is young, said to be on the radar in Washington - like many other mayors, faces some difficult challenges, talk about the budget. DAVID RICE: Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

Many Mexican-American writers use their work to share stories of history, identity and discrimination. Sanda Cisneros, author of The House On Mango Street, and young adult literature author David Rice explain what their stories can tell readers about Chicano life in America.

Viele mexikanisch-amerikanische Schriftsteller nutzen ihre Werke, um Geschichten über Geschichte, Identität und Diskriminierung zu erzählen. Sanda Cisneros, Autorin von The House On Mango Street (Das Haus in der Mango-Straße), und der Autor von Jugendliteratur, David Rice, erklären, was ihre Geschichten den Lesern über das Leben in Chicano in Amerika erzählen können.

许多墨西哥裔美国作家用他们的作品来分享历史、身份和歧视的故事。《芒果街上的小屋》的作者桑达·西斯内罗斯和年轻的成人文学作家大卫·赖斯解释了他们的故事可以告诉读者美国奇卡诺人的生活。

NEAL CONAN, host: Two years ago, amid bankruptcy, stupendous losses and bailouts, Detroit's annual North American International Auto Show looked a lot like a wake. This year, it couldn't be more different. Sales are up. Profits are up. GM and Ford show good profits. Chrysler is breaking even. The flash is back, and a spate of new electric and hybrid vehicles promise a brighter future for the big three. NEAL CONAN, host: If you work in the U.S. auto industry or if you've bought a domestic car in the past couple of years, has Detroit turned it around? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Paul Ingrassia is the author of "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster." He recently wrote about the 2011 auto show for the Wall Street Journal, where he used to be the Detroit bureau chief. He's with us now by phone from Naples, Florida. And thanks very much for being with us today. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Thank you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: And you wrote that tough love is beginning to bear some fruit for the domestic auto industry. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Well, that's exactly right. I mean, if you look at really what happened two years ago with President Obama's automotive task force, what Detroit really wanted was just give us some money, loans or whatever they wanted to be called, but throw money at the same, old system. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): And the automotive taskforce said no. They insisted on really strict and tough structural reforms. So, basically, brands, longstanding brands like Pontiac and some more recent brands like Hummer were discontinued. They were losing money. Brands were one thing. The dealer ranks were thinned. Factories were closed. Workers lost jobs. Managers lost jobs and lost part of their pensions. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): I mean, really, it was what I call the great restructuring, if you will, following, obviously, on the great recession. And it really has produced remarkable results, at least to date. The - for example, in 2005, 2006, GM and Ford, which were the only two companies that were public back then, were losing tens of billions of dollars. GM lost $10.6 billion in 2005. Ford lost 12 billion plus in 2006. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): And even though industry-wide car sales were at - near an all-time record, now car sales are at historically low levels, the companies have slimmed down enough that they're making very handsome profits despite the historically low level of cars. NEAL CONAN, host: Chrysler, as you point out, breaking even. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: Ford and GM doing quite a bit better. You wrote GM's hourly labor costs now amount to just six percent of its revenue in North America. That's down from nearly 30 percent a few years ago when the company was paying tens of thousands of workers to sit idle and paying the full freight for employee health care. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Well, that's correct. Those were part of the structural reforms. Actually, the employee health care thing got a start even before General Motors went bankrupt. But as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the automotive taskforce insisted on abolishing the UAW jobs bank - UAW, of course, United Auto Workers. And the jobs bank method, if a worker was laid off, he or she could get paid 95 percent of their salary indefinitely while waiting to be recalled to work or not recalled to work. It actually made it quite desirable to be laid off. NEAL CONAN, host: And it has changed quite a bit. Another point you think of is that when the five percent - employees now pay five percent of their own health care costs, up from nothing. And five percent is just about a fifth of what the average American employee contributes out of wages to his own health care plan. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. This is definitely a work in progress. I mean, these companies, the worst thing they could do is confuse a comeback with a victory. This is not a victory, and it should not be mistaken as such. They have progress to make on health care costs. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Ironically, UAW retirees pay about 20 percent of their - the cost of their health care, whereas active workers pay only five percent, which is - so something is out of whack here. And there's issues that still have to be addressed. There's still some (unintelligible) work rules in some of the factories that have to be done away with. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): But a lot of the old abuses, you know, on both the part of management and labor have really just been - have been treated with tough love, which was painful, but had to be done. NEAL CONAN, host: Painful but had to be done. There were a lot of prices to be paid, at heavy costs. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. We shouldn't lose track that, you know, dealers lost franchises, workers lost jobs and certainly have had trouble gaining - many of them who have lost their jobs have had trouble getting back on their feet financially, because nothing paid them as well as a UAW job that they'd had. So it's been a painful process. Many managers lost jobs, lost part of their pensions, executives did. So it's been a painful process, but it was just unsustainable, frankly, without ongoing taxpayer subsidies which - you know, guess what? We're already running trillion dollar budget deficits. We can't afford them. NEAL CONAN, host: And Paul Ingrassia, as you looked at it, the new lines of products that are coming out of Detroit, are they competitive with their foreign rivals? Are they good products? Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. Absolutely. They are competitive. I mean, I'm not quite sure all of them are - or many of them are, what you might call, compelling in the sense of being, you know, clearly far better than the foreign competition, although some of them are very, very good. But the - but they certainly are competitive. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): I mean, you know, the Ford product lineup, for example, with the Ford Fusion, a mid-sized car, is absolutely a top-drawer. And in terms of quality ratings, it has higher quality ratings, Ford does, from consumer reports, than Toyota now -which, of course, had its own quality issues last year. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): The new General Motors Chevy Cobalt is a, really, an excellent compact car that the company had just lacked for decades, to be honest with you, in terms of quality and attractiveness and that sort of thing. The new Jeep Grand Cherokee is just a terrific vehicle. It's, you know, it's a bigger vehicle, obviously, than the others. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): So there are a lot of excellent products in Detroit out there. Although, look, there's a lot of excellent products from the - from Hyundai, Subaru. Those are probably the two hottest car companies in many ways right now, but also Honda, Toyota and the others. NEAL CONAN, host: Is the propulsion revolution fully underway? Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): You know, it's beginning to feel that way, Neal. You know, for a long time, this whole thing had - this transition from hybrid cars - from internal combustion engines to hybrid cars, electric cars, et cetera, had the feel of a novelty. But when you walk around the floor of the Detroit show today, there's enough stuff there that really gives it a feel of reality, not novelty, for the first time. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Certainly, you know, the Chevy Volt has been very hyped and, you know, they're not going to sell very many of them this year. And, unfortunately, it includes a federal tax subsidy of $7,500, which I think is - you know, for a nation running trillion-dollar budget deficits, why are we paying people to buy this thing? It's a little nutty. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, it - we own the company, so I guess we're - it's in our interest to see it succeed. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah, we do. But why should we pay twice? Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): If you know what I mean. NEAL CONAN, host: I get you. Let's see if we can get some callers in on the conversation. We're talking with Paul Ingrassia, the author of "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster." He's talking about the beginning of a turnaround. 800-989-8255. Email: talk @npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Alex is with us from Holland, Michigan. ALEX (Caller): Hello. I've had - my family's had three luxury cars in our time with vehicles, and - two Chryslers, one Ford. The Ford was my car when I was a kid, and I ran it into the ground pretty good. And it just kept going until U was about 20 years old. Then it finally died on me. We just have a new Chrysler, and it is a very, very good car, our older Chrysler. I wouldn't buy that one ever again. NEAL CONAN, host: And when... ALEX (Caller): So I've seen... NEAL CONAN, host: ...you needed the - and you bought the Chrysler? ALEX (Caller): We bought - we got a new Chrysler. And we gave them a second chance after the first one, and I'm shocked. It's an amazing vehicle. I haven't had a problem with it since. The other one, we had electrical problems after the first week. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Well, that may have been the old Chrysler. Maybe this is... ALEX (Caller): Exactly. It was an older Chrysler, and for a while, they slipped up. And now, they're doing good. I think they can compete now. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Alex, thanks very much for the call. ALEX (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Appreciate it. And Chrysler is the - well, of course, Ford did not go into bankruptcy and did not accept federal money. GM and especially Chrysler did. Is Chrysler going to make it, do you think? Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. I really think so, actually. You know, Sergio Marchionne, who is the CEO of both Fiat and Chrysler - Fiat is really the controlling -well, the UAW has more shares in Chrysler. But under the ownership structure, really, Fiat has managerial control. And, you know, they're bringing a lot of discipline to the company. Quality is improving. And some other products look very good. The Chrysler 300 sedan and Chrysler - Fiat is actually reintroducing the Fiat brand with a cute little urban - two-seater urban car - well, it's four seats, but it's really two - called the Cinquecento, or the Fiat 500. It looks terrific. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's go next to Mark, and Mark's with us - calling from Detroit. MARK (Caller): Yeah. Hi. I'm thrilled to be on the show. Thank you very much. Well, it's pretty dire here, so - in the Detroit area, so we're hoping that they have turned it around. We are looking to a change in one of our vehicles or probably - I've always wanted a Jeep. But chances are, it's going to be my wife's vehicle. So I think we're looking at Ford. Traditionally, over the last 10 years or so, we've really - we've bought Toyotas. But, you know, my wife bought them years before that and swore by them up and down. But we haven't been as impressed lately. MARK (Caller): And, you know, coming from Detroit, buying Toyota was, you know, kind of - not necessarily the most popular thing at first. But, you know, I remember the days when Iacocca was saying buy American, buy American. But his number one seller was the minivan that was built in Canada, and it had a Mitsubishi engine. So... Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Right. MARK (Caller): ...it's kind of hard to really understand the old buy American thing, I think. NEAL CONAN, host: Mark, so if you're going to buy a Ford for your wife's car, which one are you considering? MARK (Caller): I know that she really likes the Flex. We have a buddy that - he's in middle management at Ford. Unfortunately, we can't get a discount. But they have a Flex, and we're seeing more and more of those around. So we're probably going to look at that. I know it doesn't take Flex fuel, but... MARK (Caller): ...you know, that might be a little - that was a little confusing at first, but it seems like a good car, you know. NEAL CONAN, host: Paul Ingrassia, what's the - what are the reviews like on the Ford Flex? Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): You know, it has been a good car. I mean, I think the one thing that the Flex might have an issue with is that, you know, it's - the Flex is basically a three - has three rows of seats. It's sort of a part-minivan, part-SUV. And now that Ford has taken the Explorer and made that less of an SUV and more of a crossover vehicle, those vehicles look fairly close together in a market place. And you got to wonder if there's room for both of them in Ford lineup long term. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Mark, good luck with your - with whatever it is you decide to go with. MARK (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Paul Ingrassia, former Detroit bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. He visited the 2011 Detroit International Auto Show, and came away maybe thinking the United States industry is on its way back. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we can go next to - this is Craig. Craig with us - another caller from Detroit. CRAIG (Caller): Yeah. I'm an automotive engineer, and I worked with, obviously, a lot of automotive engineers. And it seems like many of them drank the Kool-Aid. They're constantly complaining about the unions and so on and so forth, and their labor problems. But, I mean, the - when it comes down to some numbers I've seen, the American auto company was only paying a couple dollars more per hour for their labor costs. They don't really have such a disadvantage as they would like to think, a lot of times. Folks would happily have paid their employees whatever it took to build the Prius, if they had a Prius. CRAIG (Caller): But the executives are always planning for only 18 months ahead for their stockholders to turn a profit, versus Toyota and other companies will plan 10 years out for the health of the company and their employees. And in the end, they want to sit there and blame the employees. And the reporters seem to (technical difficulties) all the time, that their labor costs are such a problem. The American Auto companies have - many times, have come up with wonderful products. And then they spend seven years sitting on it instead of redesigning it and keeping up with the market trend, and then complain they don't have anything to compete again. NEAL CONAN, host: Paul Ingrassia, I think the consensus a couple of years ago is there was plenty of blame to go around in Detroit. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Yeah. I think there was. You know, it is true that the wages that they - Detroit pay were really are about the same as the Japanese, German and Korean factories who built - that build cars in these countries - in this country. But the difference was, is that there were lot of restrictive work rules and there was basically no-deductible health care plans, and that sort of thing. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): And essentially, those - that kind cost burden is one of the factors, not the only factor, but one of the factors why some of the Detroit products - for example, years ago the Ford Taurus almost died because Ford didn't invest money in renewing the Taurus. So, yeah, there was plenty of blame to go around, period. NEAL CONAN, host: And it's interesting. You come to the conclusion that it is too early to judge yet that Detroit has, in fact, learned its lesson as, you said earlier, has learned to tell the difference between a comeback and a victory. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Well, that's right. I mean, you know, this has happened before. Don't forget, in the early and mid-'90s, the Japanese were very slow to catch onto the SUV boom. Detroit earned record profits throughout the mid-'90s and the late 1990s on the backs of SUVs and pick-up trucks and all that sort of thing. And then they just blew it in the early years of the new century, sadly, with sort of sliding back into their own ways. So only time is going to prove whether they really have gotten the message. Well, let's hope so, but only time will tell. NEAL CONAN, host: And you also suggest that given what's happened so quickly in the auto industry - again, after the loss of many factories and many jobs and many dealerships. But nevertheless, this is something that maybe other industries -indeed, the country - can learn from. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Well, you know, I think that's really the interesting point. If you look at, you know, two years ago, Neal, it seemed that Detroit's problems were absolutely intractable. And then came a hard-nose dose of, first of all, a big crisis, and then a hard-nose dose of political will, frankly, from an administration that, you know, I was a little surprised that the Obama administration had this much will and imposed a tough-love solution. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): So if we can, you know, at least address the problems of Detroit with promises, the promise of improvement, or even a cure, why can't we imply the same tough-love methods to the federal budget deficit and the whole entitlement structure that we have in this country that has helped produce that deficit, and also to the public employee pension plans that are threatening to bankrupt many of our states? Those are huge problems that will swamp this country if they're not addressed. NEAL CONAN, host: And they are, of course, viewed as intractable right now, maybe as intractable as Detroit's problems were a couple of years ago. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Well, exactly. There was a very interesting op-ed piece a couple of days ago in The Wall Street Journal by a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania suggesting that Congress should pass a law that allows states to declare bankruptcy. And, you know, it's not a bad thought. And there's no way that GM and Chrysler would have made it through this restructuring without the ability to renounce contracts and, you know, to renounce their financial obligations that they have accumulated over the years that they could not afford to meet. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Paul Ingrassia, thanks very much for your time today. Mr. PAUL INGRASSIA (Author, "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster): Thanks, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Paul Ingrassia, the author of "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster." You can find a link to his Wall Street Journal piece on "The Great Auto Restructuring" at a link in our website. Go to npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: Tomorrow author, Maxine Hong Kingston on confronting aging. She just turned 65. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington.

In 2009, deep in the throes of the economic meltdown, Detroit's iconic North American International Auto Show was a dreary affair. But this year, earnings are up for the Big Three, and new vehicles may breathe new life into automakers. Industry watcher Paul Ingrassia talks about the 2011 show.

Im Jahr 2009, mitten in der Wirtschaftskrise, war die North American International Auto Show in Detroit eine triste Angelegenheit. Aber in diesem Jahr sind die Gewinne der großen Drei gestiegen, und neue Fahrzeuge könnten den Autoherstellern neues Leben einhauchen. Branchenbeobachter Paul Ingrassia spricht über die Messe 2011.

2009年，在经济崩溃的阵痛中，底特律标志性的北美国际汽车展令人无比沮丧。但今年，三大巨头的收益都有所上升，新的汽车可能会给汽车制造商带来新的活力。行业观察家保罗·英格拉西亚谈到2011年的车展时这样表示。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: For our freshmen arriving at college this fall, getting good grades is a big concern. Youth Radio's Bianca Butler thought she was prepared for her first year at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. She'd made top grades in high school. But all her college prep courses didn't actually get her ready for the biggest challenge. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): Here are some new concepts I learned during my first year of college: tokenized identity, racial consciousness and cultural capital. You might be wondering, was this in Freshmen Sociology of Education or Ethnicity in the U.S. 101? No. I learned about these ideas firsthand through interacting with other students. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): I grew up in a working-class black family. Only a handful of kids from my urban public high school went to college out of state, and I was the only one who went to an elite private college. Before I left, no one sat me down and told me what it will be like to enter that world. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): From the very beginning of my freshmen year, it was obvious to me that I was the exception. I was one of very few working-class black students on campus. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): One of my roommates had spent a summer exploring Moorish temples in Spain. My other roommate hung out with reality TV personalities, had a vacation home, and partied at upscale New York nightclubs. My only exposure to celebrities was the tabloids at the grocery stores checkouts, and the only foreign travel stories I could share came from a day trip to Tijuana. I know that getting to know different people is a part of the college experience, but I didn't expect the intense feelings of alienation that came from knowing people with lavish lifestyles. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): I began to feel very conscious of my social class, so I avoided giving details about my background, like my parents' occupation and the fact that I was the first generation to attend college. Everyone I met was friendly enough, but our conversations were often superficial. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): One white girl who loved hip-hop couldn't understand why I was offended when she used the N-word, and I didn't bother to explain because it was too complicated. One day I glanced through her high school yearbook. Looking at photos from her graduating class, I was shocked that there weren't any students of color. Maybe I was being too judgmental, but that alone made me feel like it would be impossible for us to really click. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): I chose the school, in part, to get outside my comfort zone. Colleges like these aren't designed for kids like me, and I didn't show up with all the tools I needed to succeed. I graduated from high school with honors, but I wasn't fully prepared academically for the demands of college. And even though I found a supportive circle of college friends, I still struggle with culture shock. Ms. BIANCA BUTLER (Youth Radio): Now that I'm a sophomore, I know what I'm in for. Bear with me while I quote from Audre Lorde's "Sister Outsider." The master's tools will not tear down the master's house, but I'm going to need those tools to navigate this experience. I spent my freshmen year convincing myself that I deserved to be here and now I'm going to spend my sophomore year proving it. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Bianca Butler's story came to us from Youth Radio.

Youth Radio contributor Bianca Butler is from a working class background. When she went away to Sarah Lawrence College she suffered culture shock. She discovered that most of her fellow students came from a world she couldn't relate to. She shares this essay about trying to fit in.

Bianca Butler, Beitragsleistende von Youth Radio, stammt aus der Arbeiterklasse. Als sie zum Sarah Lawrence College ging, erlitt sie einen Kulturschock. Sie stellte fest, dass die meisten ihrer Kommilitonen aus einer Welt kamen, mit der sie nichts anfangen konnte. Sie teilt diesen Aufsatz über den Versuch, sich anzupassen.

青年电台撰稿人比安卡·巴特勒为工人阶级背景。当她去萨拉劳伦斯学院时，她受到了文化冲击。她发现大多数同学来自一个她无法理解的世界。她分享了这篇关于如何融入社会的文章。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick. ALEX COHEN, host: And I'm Alex Cohen. In a few minutes, college textbooks are putting a strain on the family wallet. ALEX CHADWICK, host: First, more than 60 people have died in the latest outbreak of wildfires in Greece. The devastation has been most severe in southern Greece, where fires threaten archaeological ruins at the site of the original Olympic games. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Archaeologist Jack Davis is director of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. He joins us by phone from his office there. First, Jack Davis, are any of your archaeological teams in danger? Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): Well, this is a slow time of the year for archaeological projects in Greece in general. So no, we have no teams operating in the Peloponnese that are in danger. But one of our archaeological colleagues, however, does have a house in the village of Neohori, where some of the damage was greatest and the fires most intense. ALEX CHADWICK, host: We've heard about the fires approaching the original site of the Olympic games. What other sites are in this region that are important and might be threatened by fire? Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): There are literally thousands of sites in southern Greece in the Peloponnesus. In the center of the Greek Peloponnesus, places like Likosura, or the Sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion, or the Temple of Apollo at Bassae. All of these are right in the midst of the area that's been hit most severely by fires. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): I talked to a colleague this morning who teaches at the University of Athens, and she has a site, a house at the Byzantine city of Mystra near Sparta. It's actually on the outskirts of Sparta, very near the ancient city. And she said last night she and her husband were seriously frightened, that the fires were so close on the mountains around them. But mercifully there was rain this morning, which is very much out of character for this part of Greece. And by the time that we talked again at 9:00 o'clock this morning, the fires were out. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): And she did mention that some damage had been done to a Bronze Age site near Sparta called the Menelaion, which was excavated by British archeologists some years ago. And it was identified by them as the home of our King Menelaus of the Trojan War and of his wife Helen of Troy. I don't know the extent of the damage at that site. ALEX CHADWICK, host: When a fire approaches a Greek temple, these are all - they're marble or limestone in some cases, and I don't imagine that those substances actually burn. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): Well, marble and limestone, of course, both do burn if they're subjected to high enough temperatures. That's the way you make lime plaster. But I think museums are probably more likely to be damaged by fires of this sort. The construction materials are more susceptible to being burned by wildfire than are the stone blocks of a temple. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): The real issue is, I think, how intense the heat is and how sustained the heat is. In my experience brushfires of this sort often are - they are very hot, but they tend to burn - the trees burn at a distance away from the surface of the ground. And the heat is not sustained for any real duration of time, so that they can leave the actual surface of the ground or remains that are close to the surface of the ground relatively undamaged. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): For some of us who are into the business of archaeological prospection, who do surface archaeological work, sometimes the - if a forest fire has occurred in an area that can actually increase the potential for locating archaeological sites, it can improve the conditions for us. ALEX CHADWICK, host: You mean you might burn off a little bit of ground cover that's built up over the years and then underneath it suddenly you would discover a ruin? Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): Yeah, you've got the point exactly. And for much of the Peloponnesus, there's been so much out-migration since the 19th century that the intensity to which these areas were used for pasturage by sheep and goats is now nothing like what it used to be. So the sheep and the goats are going to serve as natural mechanism for keeping the brush low. And those, you know, nature's lawn mowers are in many, many, many parts of southern Greece just not a factor anymore. They're not just there anymore. So the brush has grown higher and higher through the years and constitutes a natural tinderbox. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Jack Davis is an archaeologist. He's director of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Jack, thank you. Mr. JACK DAVIS (American School of Classical Studies, Athens): You're very welcome, Alex. Thank you.

Wildfires that have killed more than 60 people continue to rage across Greece. Jack Davis, director of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, talks about the threat to archaeological ruins at the site of the original Olympic games and other areas in southern Greece.

In ganz Griechenland wüten weiterhin Waldbrände, bei denen mehr als 60 Menschen ums Leben kamen. Jack Davis, Direktor der American School of Classical Studies in Athen, spricht über die Bedrohung archäologischer Ruinen am Ort der ursprünglichen Olympischen Spiele und anderen Gebieten in Südgriechenland.

已造成60多人死亡的野火继续肆虐希腊。雅典美国古典研究学院院长杰克·戴维斯谈到了古奥运会遗址和希腊南部其他地区的考古遗址所面临的威胁。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: As we said earlier, police conduct towards civilians, particularly when someone dies, has become a flashpoint in American life. This happened in Texas last month, when an off-duty police officer shot and killed an unarmed man in his own home, claiming she mistook it for her home. And, of course, amplifying this is that the officer is white, and the deceased man was black. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But according to research by The Washington Post, there have been at least 68 police killings in Texas this year alone. A Texas state senator is trying to address this with education. He drafted a law that's just gone into effect requiring that high school students in the state watch a video about how to deal appropriately with police at traffic stops. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Please just go. Go through the light. Just don't let that light turn red. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: OK. Fine. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I think we're getting pulled over. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: What? What? Are you serious? Oh, no. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Obviously, if I go over the speed limit, we're going to get pulled over. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Royce West is a state senator from Dallas who sponsored the legislation requiring the video, and he is with us now. Senator West, thank you so much for talking with us. ROYCE WEST: My pleasure. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: How did you come up with this idea? ROYCE WEST: Frankly, we have an over-representation of African-Americans and Latinos that end up in volatile confrontations with law enforcement during traffic stops. And I guess for Philando Castile is kind of the tip of the iceberg for me. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Philando Castile - he was an African-American man who was shot by a police officer in Minnesota. ROYCE WEST: Yes. And I wanted to see whether I could do something about it in order to at least define the behavior expectations of citizens and police officers. And what's lost here is that people thinking the legislation just focuses on citizens - well, it doesn't, and it doesn't just focus on a video. The video kind of sets the stage for additional course content for both the citizen and also police and police academies. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What will be expected of the police officers at the academies? ROYCE WEST: What we've done is defined the objectives of what we want police officers to get while they're in the academy. And, in fact, the length of the course is at a minimum of two hours. The video is just a part of it, sort of a primer. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The video that we saw, at least the video aimed at the students, depicts two - what appeared to be two white teenage girls, and they're pulled over by two African-American police officers. That is not the demographic that we're talking about here. And, in fact, nationally, about 79 percent of police officers are white. ROYCE WEST: Let me just say this. The purpose of the video is as a primer. You know, if we need to go back and mix it up, that's fine. We can do that. But the purpose is to make certain we define behavior expectations of police officers and citizens and that citizens know what their rights are when you have a traffic stop. If someone wants to get down and pick at who was cast in that video - OK, fine, I can't - I can't control that. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But why - forgive me, why is that irrelevant when the very issue that you said sparked your concern here is an African-American man in an encounter with a person who doesn't look like him? If that's the source of the tension, why would you select people who are... ROYCE WEST: Let me ask this question. You can pick at it, and that's fine because anything that I do should be able to withstand scrutiny. And if I need to improve on it, I will. But the objective was to find a mechanism by which we could establish behavior content for everyone. And I thought getting a driver's license was a perfect place to put the behavior expectations of citizens and make certain citizens know what their rights are. I thought putting it into schools and making it mandatory was a great place to put it also - also, driver's license courses, and also, the police department - police academies. And by doing that, you have a great deal of repetition, and hopefully that repetition will ultimately save lives. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, but the question I think some people might have is the question - the conduct of the drivers, or is the question the unconscious bias of the officers? ROYCE WEST: I think it's combination of both. How do we make certain that there is content that deals with that bias piece? How do we make certain that, in police departments, that they have psychological examinations that fret out that unconscious bias or in instances try to erase as best possible the bias? I'm not sitting up here saying that this is going to be the panacea because it's not, it's not. But I think that it's a step in the right direction in order to make certain that we know what the behavior expectations are of police officers and citizens during traffic interactions. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Senator Royce West of Dallas. Senator, thank you so much for speaking to us today. ROYCE WEST: I enjoyed it, and I look forward to listening to you soon.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Texas State Sen. Royce West about a new mandatory video for high school students regarding how to deal with police at traffic stops.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem Senator des Staates Texas, Royce West, über ein neues obligatorisches Video für Gymnasiasten zum Umgang mit der Polizei an Verkehrskontrollen.

美国国家公共广播电台主持人米歇尔·马丁采访了得克萨斯州参议员罗伊斯·韦斯特，两人谈针对高中生的最新强制性视频，视频内容是高中生在交通站点如何与警察打交道。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: When Hurricane Michael barreled through Florida, it also crashed right into the middle of two hotly contested political races. Florida is of course a swing state and a critical one. And candidates vying for the governor's seat and a U.S. Senate seat were quick to jump into relief efforts. Here's Democrat Andrew Gillum. He's running for governor and wielding a chainsaw to help clear fallen trees... MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Revving up there. Meanwhile, here is his opponent. This is Republican Ron DeSantis on his way to the Panhandle to help out volunteers. RON DESANTIS: We're going to continue to collect supplies at the Republican victory offices for the next several weeks, so keep pitching in because the folks in northwest Florida need you. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The folks in northwest Florida need you. Well, let me bring in Steve Bousquet. He's the Tallahassee bureau chief for the Tampa Bay Times. He has been out and about today covering current Governor Rick Scott. Steve Bousquet, welcome to the program. STEVE BOUSQUET: Thank you. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So how much has Hurricane Michael shaken up these two big races? STEVE BOUSQUET: It's had a major effect in the governor's race and the race for the United States Senate because the Democratic candidate for governor is the mayor of Tallahassee, which got hit hard by the storm. And the leading Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Rick Scott, the sitting governor, is pressed into his other role as commander in chief in an emergency to sort of help this state recover. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Tell me a little bit more about how the candidates have adjusted what they're doing. We heard a little bit there from the gubernatorial candidates out on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, Rick Scott, who, as I mentioned, is currently governor - he's running to be senator. I hear he has turned his campaign over to his wife at least temporarily so that he can focus on cleaning up after the hurricane. STEVE BOUSQUET: That's correct. Rick Scott has suspended campaigning. And his wife, first lady Ann Scott, who has really not had much of a profile as first lady, has stepped into the role. That's very unusual. And I just left Rick Scott in Gadsden County, which is the next county west of Tallahassee. Rick Scott - though he's not formally campaigning, he was a listening post for people's concerns about storm problems. But everyone wanted to have their picture taken with the governor. Everyone wanted to shake his hand. The point I'm making is you can't ever completely separate governing from campaigning. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Let me ask you one practical question. Early voting in some of the hardest-hit parts of Florida is supposed to begin at the end of this month, October 27. Are those polling places likely to be up and running? STEVE BOUSQUET: Not in a place like Bay County, which is the hardest-hit county of them all and which is, by the way, the biggest county in the hurricane zone. They're scrambling. And I've talked to election supervisors who are asking Governor Scott to issue an executive order that would dramatically reduce the number of voting locations so that you'd have these super voting centers maybe every 5 or 10 miles. People would have to travel further to vote, but everyone's vote would be protected. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Has the hurricane changed the issues that voters say they want to vote on? I mean, I'm thinking of climate change, which is not often mentioned first and foremost among things that drive people to the polls. But Hurricane Michael - it was - in part, the intensity was impacted by warmer waters, which is of course linked to climate change. STEVE BOUSQUET: I'm skeptical of whether that's going to be elevated as a major issue throughout this campaign for both governor and U.S. Senate. Despite all the problems we've had here with red tide and the algae and sea level rise, environmental issues are not polling nearly as importantly as health care and education and the economy. STEVE BOUSQUET: What a hurricane does to alter the dynamics of politics and campaigning is it reinforces to people that without government, you have nothing in an emergency. You know, everyone's asking, where's FEMA? Everyone's asking, you know, where first responders are. And they're grateful for the help they're getting from first responders. But everywhere you look, you see the hand of government trying to give people hope. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Steve Bousquet - he's Tallahassee bureau chief for the Tampa Bay Times talking about the impact of Hurricane Michael on politics in Florida. Steve Bousquet, thanks so much. STEVE BOUSQUET: Thanks, Mary Louise.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks to Steve Bousquet, of the Tampa Bay Times, about how Hurricane Michael is shaping Florida's elections this season.

Mary Louise Kelly von NPR spricht mit Steve Bousquet von der Tampa Bay Times über die Auswirkungen des Hurrikans Michael auf die Wahlen in Florida in diesem Jahr.

NPR新闻的玛丽·路易斯·凯利采访了《坦帕湾时报》的史蒂夫·布斯凯，谈论飓风迈克尔对佛罗里达州本季度选举的影响。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The U.S. military campaign against ISIS has been going on since August. And in that time, the U.S. has launched air strikes and trained Iraqi security forces without official authorization from Congress. Right now, the military operations are legal under resolutions passed by Congress shortly after 9/11 and again in 2002. But Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says those laws were written in a different time. CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: It was passed in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks. It authorized the use of force against those who were responsible for that attack. Now, we are using it - this administration is using it to go after an organization that didn't exist at the time of 9/11. It certainly doesn't describe well the nature of the conflict we're in now. And I think the administration is on a very slender legal reed when it relies on that for what it's doing. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Tomorrow, Congressman Schiff will introduce a new bill to authorize the use of military force. He explained what it's meant to do. CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: The legislation authorizes the president to use force against ISIS in Iraq and in Syria. It sunsets the authorization after three years so that it won't go on indefinitely. And it limits it as well in terms of a prohibition on the use of ground forces in a combat mission. But it does basically give the president the authorization that he's sought, and yet at the same time, not provide a blank check. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You have tried to get a bill like this passed before without success mainly because a lot of your colleagues believe that the president already has the authority he needs. Is that not the case? CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: I don't think it is the case. And I'm not sure that many of my colleagues believe that either. But I think many in Congress have the content to let the administration to go forward, ironically, because many in Congress consider the president to be an appear a president and usurping to much authority. But in this respect, they're happy to abdicate because they would rather the president have the full responsibility for this in case things go wrong. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you have the buy in you want and need from members of your own party on this? CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: I think a lot of members of both parties are going to be uncomfortable proceeding much longer without a congressional authorization. And I also think there will be a lot of support for putting some real limits on that authorization given how the two other authorizations continued to be relied upon by the administration. So while there will be some, including in the administration and among the most conservative in Congress, who will push for carte blanche, there are many others of us who believe that while it's necessary for Congress to act, it's also necessary for Congress to put limits on the executive authority. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: As you mentioned, your legislation would authorize military operations against ISIS for three years and then expire. Why three years? And then what happens after that? CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: Well, originally when I introduced this last year, we had a shorter leash on it. It was a year and a half. Three years will put this beyond the presidential elections so that those won't necessarily interfere in the steady operation of the war if that's still ongoing. So I think three years is a responsible period of time. Importantly, though, it not only sunsets this new authority in three years, but it sunsets that old 2001 authority in the same three years. And that will force Congress and the administration to work together on defining the nature of the conflict both against ISIS and al-Qaida going forward. And I think that's very important. Otherwise, a future administration could say even when the new authority expires, it can still rely on this very old 2001 authorization. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The president himself has said he'd support a new UMF, new military authorization. But he clearly doesn't think he needs it because the administration has moved forward. Is the administration supporting your bill the way you think they should? CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: I expect, frankly, some of the limitations that I put in the bill are going to be things that the administration will oppose. And I think they'll seek something broader. But I think there will be a compromise, and hopefully we can reach an agreement. Although, I have to say, it's not going to be easy. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Congressman Adam Schiff of Calif. Thanks so much for talking with us Congressman. CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California plans to introduce a bill to allow congressional authorization of military operations against ISIS. NPR's Rachel Martin talks to Rep. Schiff about the new legislation.

Der kalifornische Abgeordnete Adam Schiff plant, einen Gesetzentwurf vorzulegen, der die Autorisierung von Militäroperationen gegen ISIS durch den Kongress ermöglichen soll. Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem Abgeordneten Schiff über die neue Gesetzgebung.

加州众议员亚当·希夫计划提出一项法案，让国会授权对伊斯兰国采取军事行动。美国全国公共广播电台新闻的雷切尔·马丁与众议员希夫谈论新的立法。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Madeleine Brand. JAMES HATTORI, host: And I'm James Hattori. JAMES HATTORI, host: Coming up, the rescue effort at a Utah mine goes terribly wrong when some of the rescuers are killed. We'll hear from our reporter at the Crandall Canyon mine. MADELEINE BRAND, host: First though, it's been a particularly crazy week on Wall Street and in markets around the world. And today is offering even more drama. Overnight, Asian markets fell dramatically. Japan had its worst one-day loss in years. When European markets opened, they started heading south. Then to pretty much everyone's surprise this morning, the Federal Reserve announced a cut in a key interest rate. That made markets all over the world very happy. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR's Adam Davidson has been tracking all of this and he joins us now from New York. Adam, traders in New York, very, very happy today? ADAM DAVIDSON: Yes, certainly. The Dow is up. Everyone thought it was going to go way down. And it went up because of what the Fed did. MADELEINE BRAND, host: So they cut this rate, why? ADAM DAVIDSON: Well, first of all, let me just say, they did not cut that Fed funds rate, which is what people think of when they say, oh, the Fed raised rates or it lowered rate. That's a different rate. What they cut is called the discount rate. It's sort of a standing offer to certain qualified banks to - that they can borrow money at a certain rate if they're in a lot of trouble. It's kind of esoteric. ADAM DAVIDSON: But basically it's a psychological move. It's letting banks and everyone else in the market know we know there's a problem, we're prepared for the problem, we're ready to give money where money is needed at a cheaper rate than it used to be. So it's a psychological reassurance. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And so that's all the markets around the world needed was that little psychological boost to respond so dramatically? ADAM DAVIDSON: At least this morning. We'll see how long it lasts. But you know, yesterday was a really crazy day. The day before was pretty bad too; markets falling, markets rising, lots of volatility. It's all rooted - it's not that all these people know something that you and I don't happen to know. It's that nobody knows what's going on. We know that there's a problem, that certain banks have a problem with subprime mortgages, that they invested too heavily in all these mortgages to Americans with bad credit, and that a lot of those mortgages are defaulting and so these banks are seeing some of their assets freeze. ADAM DAVIDSON: That's not the problem. The problem is we don't know how many other banks, how many other companies, how many other hedge funds and pension funds are also invested. So there's sort of this ticking time bomb mysterious thing out there. And investors hate mystery like that. They don't like having no idea how to assess the risks of the markets. So they respond very rapidly to lots of little rumors and just gut panicky feelings. So some reassurance seems to help quell that fear. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Well, does this mean, Adam, then the Fed won't cut the other rate - its benchmark rate, the Federal funds rate? ADAM DAVIDSON: Pretty much everyone today was writing about it saying, no, they're definitely going to have to cut that benchmark rate, that key rate that we think of, you know, the rate that our credit cards are tied into, the adjustable mortgages are tied into, the rate that really changes all of our lives. The Fed doesn't want to. There's a lot of risk in doing that. ADAM DAVIDSON: In fact, there is an argument that a lot of people are saying that the whole crisis right now is caused by the fact that Alan Greenspan back in 1998, when there was a very similar financial crisis, lowered interest rates and created this feeling among investors that, hey, no matter how bad things get, the Fed's always going to come in and bail us out, they'll always save the day, and that that created an environment that encouraged banks and others to lend these subprime mortgages, to lend to people who they probably shouldn't have been lending to. ADAM DAVIDSON: So there's a fear that if the Fed does that again now, which frankly, they probably will, it'll short term be a benefit, but long term could just reinforce some really bad behavior. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. What I don't understand is that - you mentioned this earlier, this all started because of high credit risk, Americans beginning to default on their subprime loans. How does that spread into a crisis around the world? ADAM DAVIDSON: Well, here's what we don't know. We don't know if the subprime mortgage problem in the U.S. is a symptom or a cause. But either way, what we - it seems that credit is shrinking from world markets. Meaning anybody anywhere in the world who needs money is having a harder time getting money. So that means more companies are going to go bankrupt, even entire countries could start defaulting. It's a scary situation. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. We will be following it here at NPR. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR's international business correspondent Adam Davidson, thank you very much. ADAM DAVIDSON: Thank you.

Capping a volatile week in the global markets, Asian markets fell dramatically and European markets have also headed south. The Federal Reserve cut a key interest rate on loans to banks, sparking a good reaction on Wall Street.

Zum Abschluss einer volatilen Woche an den globalen Märkten fielen die asiatischen Märkte dramatisch und die europäischen Märkte haben sich ebenfalls nach Süden bewegt. Die US-Notenbank senkte den Leitzins für Bankkredite und löste damit eine gute Reaktion an der Wall Street aus.

在全球市场动荡不安的一周里，亚洲股市大幅下跌，欧洲股市也在下跌。美联储下调银行贷款关键利率，引发华尔街良好反应。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So, how will these ban on affirmative action play out beyond Michigan? Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose tackles that question in a new report called Killing Affirmative Action: Would It Really Result in a Better, More Perfect Union? The study was published by the Institute for Justice and Journalism at the University of Southern California. Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose tackles that question in a new report called Killing Affirmative Action: So Ellis Cose joins us by phone now from Washington D.C. Good to have you on. Good to talk to you. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, it's good to chat with you. How are you today? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So racial double standard, that's the word. That's the new catch phrase. What does that mean? Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, it doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I mean what clearly has happened in - at UCLA and UC Berkley, which are at the top four schools in the UC system is that block around the house and they did this roughly one-fourth that UCLA - the incoming freshman class this year, what it was before this proposition passed. That's plummeting by pretty much anyone's definition. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): I think, the question that Michigan is going to have to wrestle with and that these universities are wrestling with, is - is there any way to achieve the same kind of diversity not universities period but at the top universities without using some kind of criteria that takes race into account. And what they're finding is that they really can't do that, at least not yet. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Let me ask you this, black folks have been constantly struggling for equality over the past 300-plus years in the United States, should we expect that the court system or the ballot initiative system or any system will provide that equality or should we go to other means? Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, certainly, the court system should allow the framework to exist that can lead us to equality (unintelligible) and I think the court system spoke fairly clearly. I mean the earlier segment made clear that in 2003 the Supreme Court rejected a particular system at UC Michigan, but it endorsed the idea of using criteria which used race to achieve diversity within the University. And it actually upheld the enrollment system that they had at the law school at University of Michigan. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): So, the courts can be very useful in that, but I think what Michigan showed and what the vote in California before that and Washington State after that showed it was that - if this measure is put before white voters - they are going to say, let's do away with affirmative action, because the votes in Michigan and other states went, very clearly, along racial lines. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What case can you make for affirmative action? I mean why is it good for white people, if at all? Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, the case that people who will support affirmative action make for it is that there is an interest for everybody to have some diversity within in society and that certainly within the leading institutions with the society. And it's very difficult to achieve that within affirmative action. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Now the larger question, and the question that I point to in the book, is that affirmative action is by no means a panacea for this. And the question we have not really tackled with, we have not really tackled effectively with as a society, is how do we create the conditions that will allow everybody to achieve what they should be able to achieve in a society, including poor blacks, poor whites, other people who don't have the advantages that people who are privileged have in this America. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So what can we expect next? I mean, you know, we've got the courts, we've got ballot initiatives, we've got counter petitions. What can we expect next on the national fight over affirmative action? Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, there are two big - I won't call them affirmative action cases - but two big desegregation cases before the Supreme Court, and they are going to look at that in December. So, you can expect at least a refocus on that. The vote in Michigan has given the anti-affirmative action political movement a big boost in the arm. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): So, they are going to look at other states and they're going to make other decisions and I'm sure they're going to try to put other initiatives on the ballot when they think that they can pass. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What ultimately is the goal here? What should be the goal in terms of universities, in terms of public hiring, in terms of private hiring? What does equality really mean? Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): Well, let me just say first of all none of these initiatives really effect private hiring. And so, I think that that is going to continue to go on the way it has gone on. Which is to say that more and more companies are going to just conclude for their own business reasons. That it makes sense to have something other than a non-diverse workforce. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): I think what it means in terms of the public sector is really very much in play. And the public sector includes public universities. Because what we're really talking about is what happens to the elite universities and public contracting if in fact race has to get taken off the table. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): And there are certainly measures in the university system in California that's taken a close look at some of those that you can use to try to make up for the lack of diversity that would come about if you don't have affirmative action that don't use race specifically as a criteria. But those plans tend to be very complicated. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Well, Ellis, that's all we have time for but we'd love to talk to you again. Thank you so much. Mr. ELLIS COSE (Contributing Editor, Newsweek): My pleasure. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Coe is author of the report Killing Affirmative Action: Would it Really Result in a Better More Perfect Union, published by the Institute for Justice and Journalism at the University of Southern California. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And coming up, watch your mouth. A new book teaches kids not to use the N word. But the word coon is cool on campus at Howard University. We'll discuss these topics and more on our Roundtable next. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NPR News.

Farai Chideya talks with Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose about his recent report "Killing Affirmative Action: Would It Really Result in a Better, More Perfect Union?"

Farai Chideya spricht mit Newsweek-Redakteur Ellis Cose über seinen jüngsten Bericht \"Affirmative Action abschaffen: Würde sie wirklich zu einer besseren, vollkommeneren Union führen?\"

法莱·奇德亚与《新闻周刊》特约编辑埃利斯·科斯谈论他最近的报道“扼杀平权行动：这真的会带来更好，更完美的联盟吗？”

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Julius Thomas's life has pretty much been all about football. The seven-year NFL veteran and former Pro Bowler, who played for the Denver Broncos and other teams, says the journey to becoming an athlete takes up every bit of your energy. JULIUS THOMAS: You're so determined to get to the next step, you become consumed by it. And then as you start to realize that impermanence, like, you're not going to be able to do this forever. And then you start to think, OK, well, what is it that I want to do? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, in a recent essay for The Players Tribune, Thomas announced what he wants to do. He's going to retire and pursue a Ph.D. in psychology. He wants to study brain trauma and CTE, the degenerative brain disease caused by multiple head injuries. Thomas told me via Skype that players have to live in a state of denial. JULIUS THOMAS: You always knew this may be the play where your knee is never the same again. This may be the play where your spine's never the same again. You're not particularly concerned about the long-term effects of your brain because you're focused on just getting out of today healthy. So you can't spend the time and energy on thinking about what your survival and what your lifestyles are going to be like when you're 50, 60 years old. DAVID GREENE, HOST: You know, in a way, you're going to be studying and probing what's wrong and what's dangerous about a sport that so many of your mentors and coaches and fellow teammates are all still, you know, experiencing and profiting from. How do you navigate that? JULIUS THOMAS: You know, I think that football - yes, it is a risky endeavor. I wouldn't tell people not to do it. But the key, I think, for that is understanding what those risks are. And then once you know what your risks are, then you're able to own it. Also, the more we study it, the more we'll be able to help prevent different things. Like we first have to understand, you know, what it is we're at risk for. And then we can start developing ways of helping people kind of mitigate that risk as they participate in football. DAVID GREENE, HOST: But you were playing basketball in college, right? I mean, it's a less dangerous sport. Like, why is football worth the risk? JULIUS THOMAS: The thing specific about football, I think that there is a courage factor that's just a little bit different than any other sports. DAVID GREENE, HOST: When I hear you say courage factor, the first thing I think about is whether the risk of injury, the risk of, I mean, those hard hits and what it does to your body, the courage to face that is in some ways exactly what makes football more rewarding. Is that what you're saying? JULIUS THOMAS: I think that that's why it has such a huge fan base. When you see somebody running downfield to catch that football, you're able to relate to the fear that must be inside of them because you're going, wow, I don't know how that guy went out there, took that hit, got back up. I don't know how that guy limped off the field, and he limped back on. It's able to relate to people on a human level of struggle. I think that football kind of puts that on display in a unique way. DAVID GREENE, HOST: I mean, you love this sport. Would you be ready to come out and say, based on the science, based on what I've learned, based on my research, this sport should not go on? JULIUS THOMAS: I can give you all the information that I can to help you make the decision I think is best. But I don't believe in controlling the actions of others. So I think that I may be less excited. I may counsel people differently. But ultimately, I would be very surprised if I ended up taking a stance on saying that football shouldn't be played. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Julius Thomas, best of luck in the next stage of your journey and going back to school. We really appreciate it. JULIUS THOMAS: Thank you for having me.

David Greene talks to NFL free agent and former pro bowler Julius Thomas about his decision to retire from the NFL after seven years to pursue a doctorate in psychology and study sport brain trauma.

David Greene spricht mit dem NFL freien Agent und ehemaligen Profi-Bowler Julius Thomas über seine Entscheidung, sich nach sieben Jahren aus der NFL zurückzuziehen, um in Psychologie zu promovieren und Sporthirntrauma zu studieren.

大卫-格林在接受NFL自由球员、前职业保龄球手朱利叶斯-托马斯的采访时谈到了他在NFL服役7 年后决定退役的决定，他将继续攻读心理学博士学位，并研究运动脑创伤。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep with a story of American ingenuity. The Philadelphia Phillies postponed a game Monday. They'd left the tarps off the field during last weekend's massive rain. Hoping to dry an impossibly soggy infield, the grounds crew brought out flame throwers, or more properly speaking, blowtorches. The dirt still wasn't dry enough for last night, but the Phillies hope to play the Nationals today, squeezing it in before Hurricane Florence. It's MORNING EDITION.

The Phillies postponed a baseball game Monday. They'd left the tarps off the field during the weekend's massive rain. Crews tried unsuccessfully to fix the problems with blowtorches.

Die Phillies haben am Montag ein Baseballspiel verschoben. Sie hatten die Planen während des massiven Regens am Wochenende aus dem Spielfeld gelassen. Die Mannschaften versuchten erfolglos, die Probleme mit Schneidbrennern zu beheben.

费城人队推迟了星期一的棒球比赛。周末大雨，他们把防水布盖在球场上。工作人员试图用喷灯，但这解决不了问题。

IRA FLATOW, host: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow. IRA FLATOW, host: A bit later in the hour, Christmastime bird-watching and the origins of innovation. But first, if you're a life hacker, you might say you're poning(ph) life, and you've probably never been Pluto-ed. We all hate spam in our inbox, but what about bacon? That's spam you ask for. IRA FLATOW, host: Well, today we're going to crowdsource your tweets, talk about language, new words created by science and technology, and if you didn't understand anything I just read, don't worry: My guest this hour can explain all those confusing new tech terms for us. IRA FLATOW, host: How do new words like tweet get popular? How do languages and science evolve together? Give us a call. Are there any new tech words you've heard that you'd like to share? Do you have an idea for a word that could go viral? IRA FLATOW, host: We at SCIENCE FRIDAY, we like Peabody. We want to get that word viral, a word we'd like to be used to replace geek in a positive way. Our number, 1-800-989-8255, 1-800-989-TALK, and you can tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. IRA FLATOW, host: Let me introduce my guest. Jonathon Keats is the author of Jargon Watch column in Wired magazine. He has a new book out called "Virtual Words" virtual words, not worlds, words - "Language on the Edge of Science and Technology." He's also a conceptual artist, and he joins us from Italy. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Thank you. IRA FLATOW, host: How do certain words catch on when other words don't? Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): It seems to me that the words that catch on are those that are probably least clever, that call least attention to themselves and that really kind of percolate from general usage, whereas the words that are particularly fun or funny, they may come into existence, and they may go viral, but they tend to die out almost as quickly as they came about. IRA FLATOW, host: Do you have some favorite new words from this year? Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Yes, I've been watching, as a result of my work in Wired, and one word that I really like right now is hygroelectricity, which is not hydroelectricity, it's spelled H-Y-G-R-O, and what it refers to is electricity that is taken from the humidity in the air, much as lightning is a lightening is a manifestation of this. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And what I like about it is that it makes concrete in a word an idea that is very new and really right now is in the earliest prototyping stage in a laboratory. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And it has, I think, great potential as an alternative energy source, and because there is a word, there is something that we can call it, we can start talking about it and promoting it, tweeting it, if you will, and I think that that can really be as important as the technology itself in terms of whether it catches on. IRA FLATOW, host: So that's a good thing, when you have a word that tends to -people tend to coalesce around it and advance some sort of knowledge. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Yes, and then, of course, the opposite as well. Another term that I particularly like this year is evercookies, which was a term coined by the veteran hacker Samy Kamkar, which refers to cookies, as in the cookies on your computer that remember what websites you've gone to, that never expire and cannot be removed. And he figured out a way to put cookies, I think eight different cookies onto a computer. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And it's really kind of a haunting term, which gets at a potentially very frightening problem, very frightening idea, that at some stage eBay and Amazon and other companies might be able to know a little bit more about us than we would like them to know. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And that term really makes it concrete in a way that we can start talking about it and perhaps that we can start to - to call into question, challenge this sort of imbalance in power that might be taking place. IRA FLATOW, host: Because you have, you have something, you have a word to describe it that everybody understands. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Exactly. The word becomes the basis of a cause. Now, you mentioned refudiate earlier, which is a fascinating one because it has become at once a word that stands for a cause, namely the Tea Party cause, and also a word that stands against it. It depends on who uses the word, what that word means. And I think that these words are fascinating and are maybe becoming increasingly common in politics, but also disturbing because they speak to the fact that we maybe are starting to speak past each other in political terms based on what our beliefs are, that if two people who disagree with each other are using the same terminology with different meaning, and you can't see whether one person's eyebrow is raised, for instance, that there might be a lot of talking past one another. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And I think that we're seeing, in the political process right now, the inability of people to come to any sort of agreement or any sort of common term, that perhaps this is reflected in the language and also is perhaps some of the collateral damage of the language. IRA FLATOW, host: So do you think we might start seeing more of this polarizing or polarized language being developed from... Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): I... IRA FLATOW, host: Go ahead. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): I believe so, not because the world is more polarized now than it has been in the past. That's a problem for political science, and I don't know the answer to that, but because technology facilitates the propagation of new terms. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): I mean, in the case of refudiate, tweet - a Twitter tweet was the way in which that word got out into circulation. And Sarah Palin, of course, has access some more powerful means, including television and radio, but it also is possible for somebody who simply comes up with a clever term, who wants to put it out into the world, that person can to it. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Anyone can do that, and I think that as a result, there's going to be a lot more language out there in general. There already is a lot more, and there's going to be a lot more still, that is going to have the political connotations one way or another. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And whether we can make sense of them, given how many of them there are likely to be, how much noise there is likely to be, that I don't know. IRA FLATOW, host: Let's go to the phones, to Eric(ph) in Gerber, California. Hi, Eric. ERIC (Caller): Hello. IRA FLATOW, host: Hi there. You've got a word for us. ERIC (Caller): I certainly do. The word is omniverse, O-M-N-I-V-E-R-S-E, omniverse. IRA FLATOW, host: And how would you use that? What would it mean? ERIC (Caller): Well, it's taken from the words omni, which is all, and verse, which is part of universe. When you think of universe, it's everything physical, everything you can see, you know, the entire heavens above us. ERIC (Caller): But omniverse is a larger set of everything that's included in the universe plus everything that's invisible. That means the heavens of the heaven, you know, where the angels are, anything imaginary. If there's anything outside the universe, it includes all of that. So basically... IRA FLATOW, host: Anything imaginable, basically. ERIC (Caller): Anything imaginable. IRA FLATOW, host: Did you make up that yourself? ERIC (Caller): I kind of put it together. IRA FLATOW, host: Let me ask Jonathan. What do you think of that? Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Well, it's an interesting term. There are two words that are circulating in particle physics that have something in common with it, one of which is multiverse, and the other of which is megaverse. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Multiverse is probably the more common of these, and what it refers to is all of the possible universes that arrive when you start applying the equations of string theory, the most common and fashionable theory of everything. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And the thing about the multiverse is that, first of all, it is necessary, given the mathematics of the best theory we have of everything, and secondly, it is not possible to actually access that multiverse because we are in our own universe. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): So there's an interesting way in which I think the spirituality that is suggested by your omniverse, and the unknowability, scientifically speaking, suggested by multiverse, show a certain sort of resonance that maybe exists between science and religion, though neither side probably would like to hear about that. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And I think that language sometimes can point to these resonances and can lead us, if we are conscious and self-conscious in our language, to really think about the ways in which various realms, different fields, perhaps have things to say to and about each other or things that might refudiate one another. CONAN: We have a word ourselves. We're tired of the word geek and nerd, and we're trying to promote the word Peabody, from Peabody and Sherman in the Way-Back Machine from - someone's a real Peabody, that means they're sort of a geeky person but in a positive, constructive way. So how could we get that into the vocabulary? Is that not a good word? Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Well, you have a radio station. That's always a good start, though of course anyone in radio would think of the Peabody Awards first. So you might be causing a little bit of confusion there. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): I think that a word like that actually does have some likelihood of success because it is just ambiguous enough where it came from, because - in a sense it's like spam, which is probably the single most successful new word of the past 20-odd years. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Spam comes about not because of the luncheon meat but because of a Monty Python skit about the luncheon meat that was used as sort of a code word by people within the MUDding community, multi-user dungeons, pre-dating the World Wide Web, and it was sort of a code word that once the World Wide Web evolved, once email evolved in a way that we now know it, this word already had a certain amount of obscurity to it, yet it also had enough familiarity to it that people took it as having authority, and so they started using it and kept using it. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): And I think that Peabody is maybe at that right balance between being obscure and yet having a subculture of people who are going to get behind it because of because of where it comes from, because of what it refers to in a sort of sly way, that it might well catch on. IRA FLATOW, host: All right. Well, we'll have to watch and see if - if we call somebody a real Peabody, which we're very proud to be called a real Peabody, whether that really does catch on. IRA FLATOW, host: And speaking of catching on, there are a lot of interesting phrases and stuff to catch on in your book. Jonathon Keats is author of the Jargon Watch column in Wired magazine. He has a new book out called "Virtual Words: Language on the Edge of Science and Technology." And is it true that crowdsourcing comes right out of your Wired folks, that term? Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Not only that, it actually was coined or co-invented by my editor at Wired magazine. IRA FLATOW, host: Wow, there you have it. We've run out of time. I want to thank you, John. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): Thank you very much. IRA FLATOW, host: Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Mr. JONATHON KEATS (Wired Magazine): You too, good talking with you. IRA FLATOW, host: And as I say, he's author of the new book, "Virtual Words: Language on the Edge of Science and Technology."

Have you ever been Plutoed (demoted)? Is your inbox clogged with "bacn" (spam by personal request)? Are you a lifehacker (master at optimizing everyday routines)? Jonathon Keats, artist and author of Virtual Words, explains how science and technology influence language, and vice versa.

Warst du jemals Plutoed (degradiert)? Ist Ihr Posteingang mit \"bacn\" (Spam auf persönlichen Wunsch) verstopft? Bist du ein Lifehacker (Meister in der Optimierung von Alltagsroutinen)? Jonathon Keats, Künstler und Autor von Virtual Words, erklärt, wie Wissenschaft und Technologie die Sprache beeinflussen und umgekehrt.

你曾经被降职过吗？你的收件箱被垃圾邮件堵塞了吗？你是一个生活小能手（优化日常工作的高手）吗？艺术家兼《虚拟语言》作者乔纳森·慈解释了科学和技术如何影响语言，反之亦然。

At some point this holiday season, some of us will share a roof or a table with that person: your brother's girlfriend, a stepparent, the cousin you haven't spoken with since the late '90s. While we love and tolerate our next of kin and extended family, there are those whose presence makes congregating around the eggnog bowl awkward. But they still expect an invitation to the holiday party or the Christmas dinner. At some point this holiday season, some of us will share a roof or a table with that person: We'll check in with Amy Dickinson, who writes the syndicated "Ask Amy" column for the Chicago Tribune. And if you have a problem guest, tell us your story. Our phone number, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our website, npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. At some point this holiday season, some of us will share a roof or a table with that person: Amy Dickinson joins us now from the studios at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Amy, welcome back. We hope it's properly Christmassy up there in New York State. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): It is totally and thoroughly Christmassy. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And we're going to begin with one of Amy's letters. Dear, Amy: For the umpteenth straight year, I find myself dreading our family's holiday get-together. I normally spend Christmas morning with my mother, who is divorced from my father. After several years of being single, my father remarried. He brings my stepmother to my grandparents' house for the afternoon. NEAL CONAN, host: I am an adult and almost never see her except for this time. I bear them no ill will, but I just find it incredibly uncomfortable to go from one parent to the other like this in the course of a day. My stepmother is a nice enough person, but she's made some references to my mother I don't like. She and I don't have anything in common. I dread being in her presence, even for a short time. What do you suggest, Amy? What do you suggest? Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Oh, this is terrible. The thing we all need to remember is that we can't dictate who somebody else invites to their home. This is the toughest part. So what you have to do is try to develop strategies, since you can't say to your relatives if - you know, you can't invite my stepmother. You can't say that. So what you have to do is try to develop a strategy for what you will do on the day. And sometimes it has - the only way to get through it is to know that you will keep things fairly brief. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Another way to get through it is to know that you will be busy with other things. You know, there are just very sort of common sense strategies to try, instead of confront to try and avoid. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Obviously, I do feel that if someone is badmouthing your own mother... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): ...that you do get to say and you probably should say, you know, I'd prefer it if you didn't talk that way about my mom, you know. I mean, you know, you have to stand up for yourself. But I do think it's wise to avoid confrontations on the holidays. It's a very loaded time for people. And it's no time to try and have a good fight. It's just not the right time for that. NEAL CONAN, host: At a party, you can avoid the cousin you don't like. But if it's you, your father and your stepmother... NEAL CONAN, host: ...there's a problem. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): I know. And actually, you know, one thing I've done in my own life when I faced awkward situations is to actually - I'm a big believer in practicing and rehearsing. I know it doesn't sound like that. People who know me think... Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): ...this can't possibly be rehearsed. But, you know, even to the extent of really sitting down and thinking and drawing up a list of topics that may divert the conversation away from something that you don't want to talk about. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): You know, I'm a big fan of the, sort of, drawing room, English, British dramas. And, you know, you could have 30 of, you know, sworn enemies in the same room and people would - they'd just say, more tea, dear? You know, you just practice ways to sort of divert and digress. NEAL CONAN, host: And locate... Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): It's one way to do it. NEAL CONAN, host: Maybe locate some neutral topics that - how about those Saints? They did pretty well, right? Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Listen, absolutely. Or even - I mean, this is a trick. You know what the other person is interested in that doesn't have anything to do with you, and you say: How is your African violet collection? You know, that way, you're introducing a topic you know the person will talk about that does not involve you. You're going on to a territory that you know will engage them, and then you're done. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can get some callers in on the conversation. 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Let's see if we can begin with Rosie, Rosie with us from Charlotte. ROSIE (Caller): Hello. I love your show, by the way. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you. ROSIE (Caller): The reason I called is I have a mother-in-law, as we all do, who apparently doesn't really care to be around us during the holidays. And it's really hard for me - we're invited this time to go see them. Really hard for me to feign enthusiasm to seeing her, although I tried for my children, but it's kind of hard. And I really don't know how to keep from irritating my husband with my lack of genuine feelings for her. NEAL CONAN, host: And so, what happens when you do visit? ROSIE (Caller): Apparently, I'm rather cold... ROSIE (Caller): ...which over - most people would say otherwise. But apparently, I'm very civil. And in the South, that's not a good thing. I'm polite, but I wouldn't say I'm overly enthusiastic to seeing her. So civility is not a big - it's not a good thing in the South. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): I totally know what you're saying. There is a point where politeness does seem cold. And I could understand how your politeness or your attempt to be neutral actually seems cold. I could see that. So what do you think you could do? ROSIE (Caller): So I have tried to do that - how to get over there - well, there's genuine dislike of her, anyway. But I'm trying - for the sake of my children, I'm trying to figure out what I need to do this year that's different, and especially for my husband, because he certainly doesn't want to get caught in the middle of it. NEAL CONAN, host: No, nobody wants to get caught in the middle. Is there something that she is deeply engaged in, the, you know, the Rotary Club or something? ROSIE (Caller): Honestly, no. She's a retiree, and there - we really have nothing, absolutely nothing in common. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Okay, I have an idea. I have an idea. What you have in common are your family members. So what about sitting down with her with a family photo album and asking her to tell you about the people in the photographs? Is that something that you could imagine doing? ROSIE (Caller): Not really, because, unfortunately, she's a step. She's a stepparent. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Mm-hmm. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Uh-huh. ROSIE (Caller): So she's already - I believe she feels a little separated, anyway. But most of that, I believe, is her doing. So I just can't quite figure out how to manage that little zone that we've managed to develop for ourselves. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Well, honestly, I would really suggest trying to find something, a very small thing that you two could do together where you could tolerate it, and it might make - it actually could create a whole new thing. Whether you went out for coffee, whether you said to her, you know what? I have one more thing I need to get the kids. Can you come with me? You know... ROSIE (Caller): But that's... Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): ...I mean, it's a stretch. ROSIE (Caller): I see that. It would probably be possible if they weren't -again, we're both actually coming in from two separate parts, going into the middle person - family members. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): I do. Yeah. ROSIE (Caller): Geographically, we're going into the (unintelligible). So we're nowhere near each other, for the most part. But it's just that, you know, that family gathering where we're all going to be together. And then there's, generally, the - again, my politeness goes - falls flat, according to my husband. And I can't seem to muster it to go that extra mile for her. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Rosie, the only thing I could suggest is to stay away from the punch bowl. ROSIE (Caller): Well, if I actually had a little tequila, I might actually be better off... NEAL CONAN, host: Well... ROSIE (Caller): ...and I might be a little bit friendlier. NEAL CONAN, host: That's a dangerous step. ROSIE (Caller): Well, anyway, you have a lovely holiday. NEAL CONAN, host: You, too. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Dan, and Dan is with us from Mishawaka in Indiana. DAN (CALLER): Yes. I'd just like to reveal that without a shadow of a doubt, I am the annoying, weird uncle/relative that appears at the holiday parties. NEAL CONAN, host: And what do you do that makes you so annoying? DAN (CALLER): Well, I can't tolerate small talk. And people talk about the weather and, you know, the sports - which, for me, lasts about 10 seconds, 30 seconds. Then I ask people, go around the table and reveal something, you know, meaningful, introspective: your best day, your favorite movie. If you could only have one thing on a deserted island for the rest of your life, what would that object be? And everyone - I can hear people sighing. They're frustrated, because they just want to -they don't want to think. But to me, that's where things get interesting. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Well, Dan, I totally agree with you. And actually, they might roll their eyes a little less if you presented it not as your personal idea for how to make things personally interesting to you, but as a game. I recently had a really fun night with dozens of people where we played different group games, and it was really, really fun. There are a lot of games available where you can have, like conversation cards, and you pass them around, and, you know, very, very simple group games that promote the kind of conversation that you really want to have. And I love your idea. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): But I can imagine that if it seems imposed, and it's like Dan has now decided that he's had enough of small talk, and so he - you know, you can't do it like that. But it could be different if you all played a game together. DAN (CALLER): Maybe with a little diplomacy, or eased into it a little more graciously. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Absolutely. Absolutely. Dan, you don't sound all that annoying to me. So - and you - most importantly, you're a guy that wants to - you're trying, and I love that. DAN (CALLER): Well, thank you. And one of the techniques is I want - I have everyone say their full name, and then reveal whatever the answer is. And people say, why do I have to do that? That's silly. Well, just recently, at my family members - and some of them have been around, you know, known each other for years, have been married for years - said I had no idea your middle name was - or no. I have no idea your first name was Harrison or (unintelligible). And everyone... NEAL CONAN, host: If my first name is Harrison, I wouldn't reveal it, either. NEAL CONAN, host: Dan, thanks very much for the call. DAN (CALLER): Merry Christmas to everybody. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. We're talking with "Ask Amy's" Amy Dickinson. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And here is an email we have from Viviano(ph). How do I go about introducing my boyfriend to my deeply religious, Southern Baptist family? P.S., I'm a guy. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Oh, boy. So, with no forewarning or anything... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, not that we know of. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Wow. Well, I think this actually is not the time to do that. I don't think it's the time, probably, to come out to your family. I don't know if this person is out or not, but one great way to introduce friends is by using their name. Hi, Uncle Bert. This is my friend, John. You know, you don't have to explain everything and describe everything. A lot of us have brought all sorts of friends and different relationships to our family celebration. You really don't have to describe the relationship. So that would be my suggestion. I don't think it's a good time to sort of shock people, if they would be shocked. NEAL CONAN, host: And this is from Kay: What do you with an adult guest who will not put down his smart phone during the holiday get-together? It's difficult enough to make conversation. And as the hostess, I really try to engage everyone in the family, but it's downright rude to be glued to that gadget the entire time. Right in the middle of the so-called conversation, the smart phone junkie randomly blurts Facebook happenings or other inane Internet topics. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Okay. I have an idea. Text him from the other room, or get one of the kids - see, I really believe in using children as human shields. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): And I just say, this is why we have kids. I would text him, and I would say, you know, hey, Steve. It'd be great if you could put, you know, put your phone away while we're eating. NEAL CONAN, host: So you think that would work? Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): I think it is worth a try. NEAL CONAN, host: And is there anybody awkward coming to your house this Christmas season? Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Well, I'm like Dan. I'm probably the awkward one in my family. But I have to say, I embrace all the awkwardness. It's - for me, of course, it's material. NEAL CONAN, host: "Ask Amy" - and, Amy Dickinson, thank you very much, and we hope your holidays are just terrific. Ms. AMY DICKINSON (Columnist, "Ask Amy," Chicago Tribune): Thank you, Neal. Merry Christmas. NEAL CONAN, host: "Ask Amy" and Amy Dickinson write for The Chicago Tribune. It's a syndicated column. She joined us today from the studios at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. NEAL CONAN, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

While we love and tolerate our next-of-kin and extended family, there are those whose presence makes congregating around the tree awkward. Amy Dickinson, who writes the syndicated "Ask Amy" column for the Chicago Tribune, offers advice about how to deal with unpleasant party guests.

Während wir unsere nächsten Verwandten und Großfamilien lieben und tolerieren, gibt es diejenigen, deren Anwesenheit es unangenehm macht, sich um den Baum zu versammeln. Amy Dickinson, die für die Chicago Tribune die syndizierte Kolumne \"Ask Amy\" schreibt, gibt Ratschläge zum Umgang mit unangenehmen Partygästen.

虽然我们热爱并容忍近亲和大家庭，但也有一些人使得围着圣诞树的聚会变得很尴尬。艾米·迪金森为《芝加哥论坛报》撰写"Ask Amy“联合专栏，她就如何处理讨厌的聚会客人提供了建议。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For more on Alicia and Saundra's fight for same-sex marriage, I spoke with Jasmyne Cannick. She's a Los Angeles-based activist and commentator who often focuses on gay and lesbian communities of color. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Last year, Essence magazine listed her among the top 25 women shaping the world. Cannick says that as a result of Alicia and Saundra's case, the New Jersey legislature has several options. It could maintain the marriage ban, but grant same-sex couples' marriage rights to civil unions. Cannick thinks that's a bad idea for several reasons. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): One, civil unions are not transferable, meaning if I decide to move from California with my partner to, let's say, Utah, our domestic partnership, our civil union would not be recognized. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): Second of all, we need to move away from this notion that gays and lesbians should be excluded from marriage. We pay taxes like everyone else. We contribute to society. We're teachers. We're parents. We're lawmakers. We're all over this country. And we have to stop making these categories where people are not considered equal. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: The story that we just heard about Alicia and Saundra in New Jersey was interesting because, you know, they're African-American, and the face of gay civil rights advocacy so often has been white and, you know, sometimes white male. Is there a shift underway where African-American gays and lesbians are gaining more prominence overall? Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): With any African-American community, it's important that African-American gays and lesbians are prominent. We've been a part of this community since blacks were brought over here. There have always been gays and lesbians that were African-American. Oftentimes in the civil rights movement for gay and lesbian rights, that's not the picture that you see on CNN and Fox News. You see the affluent, white, gay male couple. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): But that's changing because in 2000 and 2004 - when gay marriage was used as a wedge issue within the African-American community - black gays and lesbians realized that we're the ones that need to talk to our parents and our grandparents and our neighbors and our friends. They need to know that when they discriminate against gays and lesbians, they're also discriminating against us. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): I hear over and over again from older African-Americans who don't realize that there are, you know, aren't thinking about the fact that there are black gays and lesbians. When they see that white male on television saying gay civil rights is a civil rights issue just like the civil rights movement of the '60s, they get highly offended. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): And I think - I've always said this - that the messenger is just as important as the message is. There is a certain way, for example, there's a certain way I talk to my grandmother about this issue - a way in which other people who are not African-American cannot reach my grandmother and people like my grandmother to talk about this issue. It's important that when we have these movements that people of color take their movement for themselves. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): I would never try to go into the Latino community and try to drum up marriage support for gays and lesbians. Why? Because I probably wouldn't know how to say it. And being the messenger, they probably wouldn't take the message well from me, an African-American woman. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Give me quick snippet of something that you'd say to your grandmother. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): Well, that's funny. I just talked to her this morning. I tell her, you know, grandma, why should I not be able to have the same rights that you have? You know, I always say to my grandmother, you know, when I get my bills in the mail, it doesn't say gay and lesbian, you pay this amount in taxes and straight folks pay this amount in taxes. No. I get taxed like everyone else. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): And through the years, believe it or not, she has really come around. She really looks at this from a different perspective because a, I'm her granddaughter; b, she sees what it's really all about. Because, you know, with black folks - maybe not just with black people, but a lot of people try to say, oh, being gay is all about one's sexual orientation. Now, it's about more that. It's about having relationships and building families and being able to take care of our families. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But looking nationally, if you take Arizona, it was the only state out of eight that had proposed same-sex marriage bans that said no, we're not going to have this. The seven other said yes, we will. So what does that mean across the board? Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): Well, I think what is important to mention in terms of the past election and the same-sex marriage bans is one, that a lot of the initiatives in the various states failed to get more than 60 percent of the vote. They did pass, but not in the overwhelming numbers as we saw in 2004 and 2000. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): At the end of the day, people still are not comfortable with the idea of gays and lesbians getting married. But what I think is important - especially in the African-American community - is that we continue to do a lot of outreach and we continue to talk to one another. And for gays and lesbians who are black, that we continue to be visible in our communities. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): I've always said, you know, we're a big part of the church and not just in the choir. We're pastors and deacons and so on and so forth. We're a big part of our community - and not just hairdressers. And we're teachers and other things, and we just have to let our community know that we're here. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Jasmine, thank you so much. Ms. JASMYNE CANNICK (Activist and Commentator, Los Angeles): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Jasmyne Cannick is an activist and social commentator who writes about, among other things, the gay and lesbian communities of color. Last year, Essence magazine listed her among the top 25 women shaping the world. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Coming up: in Texas, at least one small business won't do business with gays. And Washington breaks ground on the new Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial. We'll discuss these topics and more on our Roundtable - next.

Farai Chideya talks with Jasmyne Cannick, an activist and social commentator who writes about, among other issues, gay and lesbian communities of color. Last year, Essence magazine listed her among the top 25 "Women Shaping the World."

Farai Chideya unterhält sich mit Jasmyne Cannick, einer Aktivistin und Sozialkommentatorin, die unter anderem über schwule und lesbische Gemeinschaften der Farbigen schreibt. Letztes Jahr wurde sie von der Zeitschrift "Essence" unter die 25 besten "Frauen, die die Welt gestalten" aufgenommen.

法瑞·迟德亚与贾斯敏·坎尼克交谈，贾斯敏·坎尼克是一位活跃分子和社会评论员，他撰写的内容包括有色人种男女同性恋社区等问题。去年，《精华》杂志将她列为“塑造世界的女性”前25名女性之一。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Madeleine Brand. JAMES HATTORI, host: And I'm James Hattori, sitting in for Alex Chadwick who's on assignment this week. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Coming up, Cuba celebrates Fidel Castro's 81st birthday, but without a public appearance by Fidel. A look at what has happened in the year since he turned over power to his brother Raul. JAMES HATTORI, host: But first, he's been called the Architect, Bush's Brain and, back in the day, Boy Genius. But he's better known as Karl Rove. JAMES HATTORI, host: Rove announced his resignation today as deputy chief of staff and chief political advisor to President Bush. Rove said he wants to spend more time with his family. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Rove is credited with creating the political strategies that brought George Bush the Texas governorship and two terms as president. He spoke this morning outside the White House. Mr. Karl Rove (Deputy Chief of Staff): Mr. President, the world's turned many times since our journey began. We've been at this a long time. It was over 14 years ago that you began your run for governor and over 10 years ago that we started thinking and planning about a possible run for the presidency. And it's been an exhilarating and eventful time. MADELEINE BRAND, host: We're joined now by NPR's White House correspondent David Greene. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And David, you are in Iowa right now, on the campaign trail? DAVIDE GREENE: The state of Iowa, that's right. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. Just fresh off the straw poll for the Republicans. Now, did I detect a little quivering in Rove's voice there? DAVIDE GREENE: You did. He did sound very emotional. But it sounds like he's been thinking about this decision for a while. President Bush said he's been talking to Rove for quite a while about this decision. And Rove told The Wall Street Journal that he's been talking to the president, thinking about this for at least a year. He said he wants to spend more time with his wife and also his son who's in college in Texas. But you know, he's been a constant target for Democrats throughout his career. And I think this was a moment where he might have thought he could get out without it looking like he was pushed out by circumstances and really leaving on his own terms. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Right. And you've been covering Rove since the Bush presidency, since 2001. And tell us about a different side of Rove that you've seen. DAVIDE GREENE: Well, yeah. It was interesting seeing him so emotional because we in the press corps, you know, see a really quirky guy when we run into Karl Rove. He loves to mess with the White House press corps. I was once standing on a tarmac outside Air Force One and he came over and he took a FOX Television camera away from a crewmember and handed it to me and asked me if I wanted to try to be a cameraman for a day. And you know, he often roamed the White House grounds handing out chocolates to reporters. And it was just strange. I always got the sense that it was sort of a shtick, you know? And in some of his rougher times, attacked by Democrats and a special prosecutor, he wanted to display this confidence, this feeling of, you know, here I am, I'm hanging loose and no one can touch me. DAVIDE GREENE: And the biggest most memorable moment was at a dinner with journalists earlier this year. Let's play some tape of that. He was MC Rove dancing on the stage. Mr. BRAD SHERWOOD (Comedian): (Rapping) You were such a helpful treasure trove. Tell me what is your name? Mr. ROVE: MC Rove. Mr. BRAD SHERWOOD (Comedian): (Rapping) See him later hanging in the cove. Tell me what is your name? Mr. ROVE: MC Rove. DAVIDE GREENE: It's just stunning, Madeleine. I mean, it's - and a lot of people in the Democratic side were very angry that reporters at that dinner were, you know, kind of dancing and grooving on a stage with him. But he like to kind of, you know, do it up with the press corps and I think try to send a message that he's doing just fine, even in the roughest times. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Yeah. Yeah. Well, day job. Day job. DAVIDE GREENE: Right. MADELEINE BRAND, host: So President Bush called Rove his Architect and, you know, other less flattering portraits. Rove's been called his - Bush's Brain. DAVIDE GREENE: That's right. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Yeah. So what did the President mean by that, calling him his architect? DAVIDE GREENE: Architect probably the most flattering. You know, he goes back 34 years with the president. And you know, really, Karl Rove created the politician that is George W. Bush. You know, as Texas governor he molded him as the candidate in 2000 and 2004. And you know, he's made some pretty bold predictions that President Bush, you know, in 2004 would win reelection. There was a lot of talk that there would be this new Republican majority. And then leading into the midterm elections in '06, Rove predicted again that the Republicans would take both Houses of Congress. And in that case he was very wrong. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR's David Greene, thanks a lot. DAVIDE GREENE: Thanks, Madeleine.

President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist Karl Rove will resign at the end of August. For reporters at the White House, Rove often displayed a quirky and prankish personality.

Der enge Freund und politische Chefstratege von Präsident Bush, Karl Rove, wird Ende August zurücktreten. Für Reporter im Weißen Haus zeigte Rove oft eine schrullige und scherzhafte Persönlichkeit.

布什总统好友、首席政治战略家卡尔·罗夫将于8月底辞职。在白宫记者面前，罗夫经常表现得古怪且爱开玩笑。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is DAY TO DAY from NPR News. I'm Alex Chadwick. MADELINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand. MADELINE BRAND, host: Well, if you have $35 and you happen to be in Ames, Iowa on Saturday, you can head on down to the Iowa straw poll. Thousands will join you to vote for a Republican presidential candidate. It's not an official vote, of course, but Alex, you know, rocker Alice Cooper will be in nearby Des Moines tonight playing at the State Fair. Coincidence? ALEX CHADWICK, host: You're saying Alice Cooper may want to - something on the Republican ticket? I don't know about that. We were talking about Iowa earlier with NPR News analyst Juan Williams, who told me that he thinks people are just beginning to question the whole importance of the Iowa polls and caucuses. JUAN WILLIAMS: As you know, there's lots of pressure for every state now to move up to compete with Iowa, to be the first in the nation either for a caucus or a primary. Now, at the straw poll lots of the Republicans - and I'm talking leading Republicans, with the exception of Mitt Romney - we're talking here about Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, the unannounced candidate, Fred Thompson - they are all staying away from the straw poll and they're putting pressure therefore on Romney to have an extraordinarily high performance and he may not get there. But if he doesn't simply blow things away, they'll be able to say he didn't do all that well in the straw poll. JUAN WILLIAMS: And similarly, down the road people are saying, well, you know, you can compete in Iowa, but what does it mean? It's a small state. You really have to save your money and your campaign structure for the big states that are going to come shortly thereafter. And here we're talking about Florida, California, Texas, New York. When those states roll out, that's where you're going to get the real delegates going into a convention that could send you over the top and give you the nomination early. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Several big Republican candidates seem to be dismissing Iowa altogether. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson aren't - well, Fred isn't even in the race yet. But... JUAN WILLIAMS: Right. ALEX CHADWICK, host: ...these guys are not in Iowa trying to compete in the straw poll. They're kind of saying, okay, Mitt Romney, you've got a lot of money to spend down there. Go ahead and spend it. JUAN WILLIAMS: Yeah. And in fact he's been spending it; he's up on the airwaves in - not only Iowa but New Hampshire, far more than anybody else. So what the political consultants are saying is look at the burn rate, because there's talk about burning big money and burning it early. JUAN WILLIAMS: So that if - he needs a big victory, Alex. But the problem so far is that he has been getting hit, especially over the last week, called a flip-flopper on his stance on abortion. You know, he was the governor of Massachusetts and there appeared to all images to be in support of a woman's right to choose on the question of abortion. Now he's saying that wasn't his stance, people misinterpreted, and of course he's changed his mind. But even talk show hosts have been just going after him. So this could cut into however well he's going to do. People expect that he will win the straw poll but the question again is the margin of victory. And right now he's on the defensive. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Another question for Mitt Romney, who is a supporter of the war in Iraq - someone asked him this week, how come none of your five sons - five - are in the military? JUAN WILLIAMS: And his response, Alex, was to say that these young men are serving the country well by helping him to get elected. I - that remark had lots of waves of consequence and repercussion. People were left slack-jawed because everyone said, wait a second, you know, how insulting. You mean just by helping your dad run for office, you're serving the country as compared to young people who are out in the midst of Iraq? So I think you're going to hear a lot more about that comment in days to come. ALEX CHADWICK, host: All right for Mr. Romney right now. We'll note that the straw poll we've been talking about is just in the Republican Party. The Democrats don't have a straw poll. But they did have a debate just yesterday, one of several. They've been - maybe the Democrats are about debated out. What do you think? JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, you know what? I think debate fatigue may be setting in. Although in a recent poll, Alex, I noticed that Americans said no, they liked the early debates, they didn't have any problems with it. But I'd be very interested to see what the ratings have been like. Now, earlier this week the Democrats had a debate outdoors in Chicago in front of labor organizers, and I just think that the debate went by as if it never happened for many people. JUAN WILLIAMS: And then, of course, you had the debate just last night on Logo - the gay network. On again, you know, some candidates don't show up. Joe Biden doesn't up for, you know, what would seemed to be a major opportunity to get out there and get some publicity for a guy who needs that kind of exposure. But you have the candidates onstage, and it seems almost as if every advocacy group simply wants the candidates to come in, pay their respects - the candidates are worried - I can tell you their campaign managers are all worried that they're going have some slip-up, they're going to say something to try to appease one advocacy group and then anger another advocacy group that they're going to have to appear before later. JUAN WILLIAMS: So I'm wondering, you know, at what point do the viewers actually begin to pay strong attention? And my guess is that it'll come sometime in October because everyone realizes that they're going to have to go to the polls, possibly, given all the states competing to have their first primary caucus, possibly now even around Christmas. ALEX CHADWICK, host: That's NPR news analyst Juan Williams, a regular Friday guest on DAY TO DAY.

Republican Presidential hopefuls will participate in the Iowa straw poll Saturday. This is one of the first bellweathers for the candidates. Meanwhile, Democrats just finished a week of televised debates.

Republikanische Präsidentschaftskandidaten werden am Samstag an der Strohumfrage in Iowa teilnehmen. Dies ist eines der ersten Glockenwetter für die Kandidaten. Unterdessen haben die Demokraten gerade eine Woche mit Fernsehdebatten beendet.

周六，共和党总统候选人将参加爱荷华州民意测验，这是候选人首个风向标之一。与此同时，民主党刚结束为期一周的电视辩论。

NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Bernie Sanders joined us last week to explain his opposition to President Obama's tax compromise with Republicans. The senator spoke on the subject for eight and a half hours on the Senate floor and argued the deal would increase the national debt and the gap between rich and poor Americans. NEAL CONAN, host: Washington Post op-ed columnist Michael Gerson wrote last week that Senator Sanders' view is far too simplistic. He also went on to castigate the right as equally shallow. The president signed the compromise into law on Friday. NEAL CONAN, host: As you look at it now, how does the tax deal affect you? Our phone number, 800-989-8255. Email, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. You can find a link there to Michael Garson's column as well. It appeared in The Washington Post. And, of course, Michael Gerson also used to write speeches for President George W. Bush, and he joins us here in Studio 3A. NEAL CONAN, host: Nice to have you back on the program. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Great to be with you. NEAL CONAN, host: And I wonder, before we go to far, you actually think the compromise was a pretty good deal. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): I do. It was an achievement. It's mainly a negative achievement in that it avoids a contraction of the economy in January which no one really wanted. And it was, you know, had pretty broad bipartisan support. You don't want to increase taxes at this moment in particular, and most people agreed on that. And so I don't think it accomplishes much, but it avoids this self-inflicted wound. NEAL CONAN, host: Yet, it also you said was instructive as you looked at the ideological debate on both sides. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Right. NEAL CONAN, host: And why don't we start with Senator Sanders, who joined us here last week. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, it really did provoke an argument about the nature of social equality with Senator Sanders arguing - he's a self-described Democratic socialist. He doesn't, you know, object to that term - that American society is too unequal, and that redistribution is the key to social equality. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): I do think that's too simplistic a perspective. If you look at what creates mobility in America that takes people out of poverty and brings them to the next stage, it's not just the distribution of money. It really is a set of skills, social capital and, you know, educational achievement and a lot of other things that are much more complicated than dealing with a top tax rate. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Sanders said it is basically absurd to be giving huge tax breaks to the richest people in the country, including many millionaires and billionaires, at the same time that we have a record-breaking deficit of $13.7 trillion. At the same time, we are ignoring many enormous problems facing the country, and he did mention education infrastructure and others. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, that's true. But if you look at what's happening here, I mean, the economic theory of this tax break is just essentially trying to create some economic growth coming up in the new year. That was the president's intention. There was argument about the top rates, but it really is irrelevant to this question of social equality. How do you achieve that? Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): If you look at the Brookings mobility project - a really good project based at Brookings - they look at the three keys to getting people out of poverty, and they talk about it as a high school education or more, waiting till you're married to have children and then a third one which is the - I'm sorry. It's escaping me now, but there's a... NEAL CONAN, host: I'm quickly skimming through here. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Which - right. NEAL CONAN, host: And married and work full time. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Yeah, working full time. So, you know, I think a policy - a U.S. policy that focuses on mobility, it actually unites people in a certain way because, you know, clearly the goal here is to take people out of poverty, and what are those standards that allow people to advance in a society. And we have a problem, a mobility problem in America. NEAL CONAN, host: Yet, the idea of extending these tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans struck not just Senator Sanders but many as unfair. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, it was essentially maintaining the rates that we've had for quite a while. And, you know, you can argue about marginal tax rates. I guess my point was that that's not the real debate that most people face. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Right now, people feel like they're not able to get ahead in this economy. How do you help people move particularly from the lower-class families to the middle class? And America has less mobility among that group than nations like Finland and Sweden and others, which you wouldn't expect necessarily. It violates our self image. We're supposed to be a mobile society. If capitalism has inequality and no mobility, then it's just a caste system. NEAL CONAN, host: And that's where you found some problems with the arguments on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Right. Well, I think on the right, sometimes the argument is as long as the economy is growing that mobility doesn't matter, you know, inequality doesn't matter. But it matters greatly because if you have social stagnation, if you don't have enough economic mobility, then you do have a class structure that comes out of capitalism. Inequality becomes a class system. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): And so I think Republicans need to focus on these same things, about education and family and helping people develop wealth and skills in this economy. That's the hard work, but that's the real work of achieving social equality. NEAL CONAN, host: There were also those who on it was interesting to see a lot of the arguments reversed, as some of the progressives who would be happy to vote for a stimulus bill objecting to increasing the national debt. And many Republicans who had characterized themselves as deficit hawks voting the other way. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, we've really had two stimulus now. One of them are more Democratic-oriented stimulus, which had a lot of pent up spending from the Congress. And another one that was a more Republican-oriented stimulus that, you know, kept tax rates low and refunded a portion of the payroll tax and, you know, Republicans were more comfortable with that. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): But pretty much everyone in Washington thought that we needed a stimulus. That was not really a matter of debate. This is not the time at least in the way the president and the Congress agreed to have a contraction of the economy in the coming year in the interest of deficit reduction. That really wouldn't help very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's get some callers in on the conversation. Our guest is Michael Gerson, who is the op-ed columnist for the Washington Post. 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Jay is calling us from Pleasanton in California. JAY (Caller): Good day. I would say this tax cut affects me the same I'm affected when I buy myself a Christmas present with my own credit card. I really like opening it but I know a bill is coming in January. NEAL CONAN, host: So you fear the deficit is going to be down the road? JAY (Caller): Of course. We're kicking it down the can and we're not going to deal with it in an election year either, and that's what worries me. But I like opening the present, but I know I have to pay for it. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Jay. Thanks very much for the call. And Michael Gerson, he's got a point. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): He's does have a point. Eventually, you do pay for everything. But the reality here is, I think Congress made the calculation that timing matters, that we're recovering from a tremendous economic downturn, one of the most serious of recent times. And that you need to eventually get spending under control. But right now, you don't want to do it in such a way that it undermines economic growth and tax revenues, actually. We don't know which so they made the calculation that the timing was not right to pursue a major austerity plan. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Aaron(ph), Aaron with us from O'Fallon in Illinois. AARON (Caller): Hi. I wanted to question on the estate tax. I was following it and that seems to be one of the biggest concerns. And I wanted to know that by giving the Republicans the reduced rate of I think it's 35 percent now. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. AARON (Caller): Well, how much in tax revenue is lost by that? Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): I don't know the exact figure. I mean, it's a significant amount of money. It is limited in the bill to estates of $5 million or less... NEAL CONAN, host: The first $5 million is exempted. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): ...is exempted. And then the upper rates kick in under those circumstances. But it is a you know, it's a case where Republicans have an ideological objection and have had for a long time to any estate taxes. They really feel like that's unjust form of taxation entirely, taking essentially inherited wealth and having the government redistribute it. NEAL CONAN, host: Aaron? AARON (Caller): Yes. OK. Well OK. I was just kind of wondering the actual nominal amount on that. NEAL CONAN, host: It is I don't have it in my hand either, but it is a significant, though, it's not going to solve the deficit by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): And it's paired they paired it in the plan and the president insisted on this with better treatment of the EITC to you know, for the poor, and tax credits, child tax credits. And it's, you know, mix bag. There's kind of something for everyone in this package. And that's one reason it passed with large majorities. NEAL CONAN, host: Aaron, thanks very much for the call. Appreciate it. AARON (Caller): All right. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. And let's see if we can go next to this is Glen(ph) and Glen with us from Tucson. GLEN (Caller): Hi. How are you doing? Thank you for having me on the show. NEAL CONAN, host: Sure. GLEN (Caller): And my question is about the reduction in the payroll tax until next year. I'm getting close to retirement age and I want to know what the Congress' opinion was of what benefit that does people that are potentially going to be on Social Security. This is essentially going to eliminate long-term growth, you know, the money coming in for Social Security. NEAL CONAN, host: I think the calculation is that Social Security was going to be find until, I think, 2016. And now, some people fear that may be reduced because of this payroll tax cut. Michael Gerson? Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): No, I think that's exactly the case. I mean, we have a situation where the American debt problem, our long-term debt problem is in many ways an entitlement problem. It's a problem with Social Security to some extent, but mainly Medicare and Medicaid, which is the largest unfunded commitments in our budget. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): And so, you know, providing this kind of holiday was a Republican idea from the first round of stimulus. It's a very efficient way to deliver tax relief. It gives it to people who are going to use it. It's - you know, it's an effective stimulus in lot of ways. I think economists would agree with that. But there's a long-term cost to all of this. And, you know, the stability, our financial stability depends on eventually getting some kind of deal on entitlements. And that is going to be politically very hard. NEAL CONAN, host: In the short-term, though, I'm not sure that Glen's retirement is immediately threatened. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): No, in fact, I think they made the calculation that, you know, neither Social Security or Medicare are in an emergency state right now. The problem is if you don't start to address those issues, they get harder to address in the future. NEAL CONAN, host: Glen? GLEN (Caller): Isn't this the first attack on Social Security, where the Republicans want to give us this and it's going to be, next year let's do it another year because we're in a recession? And then the next thing it's going to be is, we really don't need Social Security, let's put all your money in the stock market. NEAL CONAN, host: Again, one of Senator Sanders' arguments. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Now, well it could be. But I think the serious Republican approaches on this - you'll find people like Paul Ryan, the new head of the Budget Committee... NEAL CONAN, host: In the House. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): ...in the House coming in. What they want to do is means test Social Security, which would make the system actually more progressive. It would say if you're a millionaire or a billionaire, then you're not going to get the same benefits as everybody else. So the serious Republican plans out on the table right now are means testing, not undermining it for everyone. NEAL CONAN, host: Michael Gerson, op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. You can find a link to his article, "The economic debate we should be having" at our website. Go to npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And I wonder if I could, just having had that phone call, engage you on the trap arguments that we've heard from both sides. Some Democrats say, yes, we've just voted on a whole new round of stimulus and a whole new round of debt. Come the new Congress with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives are going to say, now we must go after deep cuts in Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, indeed. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, the Republican House is going to have deep cuts in their proposed budget. I mean, 20-some percent cuts in discretionary spending, it's going to be... NEAL CONAN, host: Though those aren't discretionary. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Right. No, that's true. The question is how they engage on entitlement issues. I think Republicans are going to be very hesitant to do that in the next two years. They don't have a president who would support it. It would be a tremendous risk for them. So I think they're kind of laying the groundwork right now, the arguments for eventual entitlement reform, which, you know, are very hard for anyone. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): If you look at the options on the table, none of them are easy for either side. But, you know, if we're going to avoid the eventual fate of Greece, I think a lot of people are convinced, a lot of economists are convinced, that we have to reduce those unfunded liabilities. NEAL CONAN, host: And the Republican trap plan, we voted for something that's raising the debt - that's a problem. And of course, if this stimulus works, well, a lot of people are going to go back to work, the economy is going to be better and President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Well, the president's political interests are, in this case, exactly the same as the country's interests, which is a good thing. You know, if the economy turns around, many of his political problems will fade. But the measure of that is really going to be unemployment. I mean, right now, we've had growth in the stock market, we've had growth in corporate profits, but employment has been very stagnant. That's a lagging indicator. But that's going to be the main one that people are concerned about. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can get another caller in on the conversation. And let's go to John(ph), and John's with us from Rochester in New York. JOHN (Caller): Good afternoon. NEAL CONAN, host: Afternoon. JOHN (Caller): I - my proposal is this. I - not only should we maintain the Bush tax cuts, but I think in the next session of the Congress, we should look at decreasing the tax rates for the upper income levels even farther. I think when they call our tax system of a progressive tax system, where the tax rates for the wealthy are higher, I think is a misnomer. I think it should be called regressive. JOHN (Caller): If you're paying more in taxes, your rates should be lower. It goes - the economies (unintelligible) prevails, where the more over something that the -you buy in volume, more of a discount you should get. So tax rates should actually be less for the upper income levels, and that'll stimulate economic growth to a great extent. JOHN (Caller): Now as far as dealing with the budget, I think you've got to go into cutting government spending starting with maybe the Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, the bureaucracies that are out there. That's where the problem is. NEAL CONAN, host: So John, we need inequality? We need fewer taxes on the rich and more on the middle class? JOHN (Caller): Well, a lower tax rate on the rich because I think in the end that will stimulate more growth. I think it's unfair right now. I think the current tax system is regressive. NEAL CONAN, host: And John, I'm not - we heard your argument. I just want to give Michael Gerson a chance to respond. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Sure. I think there is a number of Republicans out there that are proposing to reduce corporate tax rates, which would seem very counterproductive if you're trying to add jobs. I think there's very few out there that want to see a more aggressive system than we currently have, although there are some advocates of a flat tax in America. NEAL CONAN, host: And it will be very interesting to see the debate on the defense budget, which John also mentioned. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): And the secretary of defense has been preparing for those cuts for over a year now, talking about where they're permissible, where they're not. He's been very smart about positioning with the Congress about where some cuts might come. NEAL CONAN, host: Washington Post op-ed columnist Michael Gerson, a former speech writer for President Bush. He's currently a fellow at One, an organization that advocates for the fight against extreme poverty and global disease. Kind enough to join us today here in Studio 3A. Appreciate your time, as always. Mr. MICHAEL GERSON (Columnist, The Washington Post): Great. Thank you.

President Obama signed into law the compromise tax bill that extends both the Bush-era tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson believes the liberal opposition to the bill is too simplistic. He talks about what he calls "the economic debate we should be having."

Präsident Obama unterzeichnete das kompromisslose Steuergesetz, das sowohl die Steuersenkungen aus der Bush-Ära als auch die Arbeitslosenunterstützung verlängert. Der Kolumnist der Washington Post, Michael Gerson, hält die liberale Opposition gegen das Gesetz für zu einfach. Er spricht darüber, was er \"die Wirtschaftsdebatte, die wir führen sollten\" nennt.

奥巴马总统签署了一项折衷的税收法案，该法案延长了布什时代的减税和失业福利。《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家迈克尔·格尔森认为，自由派对该法案的反对过于简单化。他谈到了他所谓的“我们应该进行的经济辩论”。

MADELINE BRAND, host: This is DAY TO DAY from NPR News. I'm Madeleine Brand. ALEX CHADWICK, host: I'm Alex Chadwick. ALEX CHADWICK, host: New York City Council, fresh off a symbolic moratorium on the N-word, is hunting new letters every day. MADELINE BRAND, host: A resolution now before the council would ban the B-word - rhymes with witch - and the H-word, rhymes with - oh no? ALEX CHADWICK, host: Ho, ho, ho. MADELINE BRAND, host: Okay, Santa. Okay. A little warning, you'll hear those words in their full glory later in this report. From the gentility capital of the world here is our own Mike Pesca. MIKE PESCA: The New York City Council, in banning the word (bleep) - oh, come on - they introduced a resolution which - and I quote - seeks to join a national conversation about the appropriateness of the pejorative use of terms like... MIKE PESCA: ...and... MIKE PESCA: Hey, how can I report on... MIKE PESCA: ...if I can't say... MIKE PESCA: Oh. Son of a... MIKE PESCA: Darlene Mealy is the councilwoman who introduced this symbolic moratorium. She doesn't use the actual word in favor of the letter B. Ms. DARLENE MEALY (Councilwoman, Brooklyn, New York City): The same as the N-word, it degrades women calling them B's, and if we don't subject that to at least some censorship, we lost. MIKE PESCA: But there are literally thousands of racist and sexist slurs uttered every day in New York and that's just coming from my downstairs neighbor. So where does banning specific words end? Councilmember Mealy is most offended by words that have pervaded popular culture. Ms. DARLENE MEALY (Councilwoman, Brooklyn, New York City): Someone did call me up, the Orthodox sect, and he said, well, some people call us kikes. MIKE PESCA: Mm-hmm. Ms. DARLENE MEALY (Councilwoman, Brooklyn, New York City): And I said I understand that. I said, but do they sing about it in their lyrics? Do they say it to you every day? That's why B and ho and N is a word, words that we need to take out. MIKE PESCA: The resolution itself specifically cites rap music. And in a first in municipal history, quotes Queen Latifah - every time I hear a brother. Ms. Queen Latifah (Rapper): (Rapping) Every time I hear a brother call a girl a bitch or a ho... MIKE PESCA: Queen Latifah's efforts were belittled in the resolution. So I wondered what council member Mealy would make of the Meredith Brooks song, which sought to reclaim the modern variant of strumpet or trollop. I played her this hit, which went to number two in 1997. Ms. MEREDITH BROOKS (Singer): (Singing) I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a singer... MIKE PESCA: So I don't have Meredith Brooks in the studio here with me but it seems to me like what she was saying is that she's talking about herself. It's not a man calling that woman a name. Do you object to that? Ms. DARLENE MEALY (Councilwoman, Brooklyn, New York City): Yes, I do. Why would we degrade ourselves? I know I'm more than a four-legged dog. And being a four-legged dog, when dogs get in heat, they hump and do whatever they want to do to the female B dog. MIKE PESCA: When I did get a hold of Meredith Brooks a few hours later, she said no animals were humped in the making of this song. Ms. MEREDITH BROOKS (Singer): "Bitch" for me in that particular context was my no. It was a different thing for everybody, but for me it was my no. I wasn't able to say no very well. And I kind of have to muster it all up and went - no. Ms. MEREDITH BROOKS (Singer): So it was my strength. It's a power word. MIKE PESCA: Brooks, by the way, has just come out with a children's album with no naughty language on it at all. One place you will find the B word happens to be at the National Organization for Women. Sonia Ossorio is the president of the New York City chapter of NOW. Ms. SONIA OSSORIO (NOW): One of the magazines we have on our coffee table and a book that we have on our coffee table is the magazine called Bitch, and there's another one, it's the new book about career success that's call "M-Bitches." MIKE PESCA: Ossorio thinks the conversation about the impact of words is good; having the government leave the conversation through coercion is bad. Ms. SONIA OSSORIO (NOW): You know, if it was a real resolution, that would be very dangerous territory, to ban words in free speech. But no one's going to get arrested for - there aren't any penalties and it... MIKE PESCA: So the best thing about the resolution is that it's toothless? Ms. SONIA OSSORIO (NOW): Yeah. Exactly. MIKE PESCA: Toothless and popular, at least among legislators. The resolution was introduced with 19 co-sponsors. Crunch the numbers on the 51-member council and you'll see that 26 votes assure passage. And there are 26 letters in the alphabet. So if each council member gets to ban his or her own letter, all the votes will be locked up. And once that happens, no one in New York City will ever hear an uncivil utterance again. MIKE PESCA: Mike Pesca... MIKE PESCA: ...PR News... MIKE PESCA: ...YC...

First came a ban on the N-word. Now the New York City Council is considering a measure that would outlaw what it's calling the B-word and the H-word, both common slurs used against women.

Zuerst kam ein Verbot des N-Wortes. Jetzt erwägt der New Yorker Stadtrat eine Maßnahme, die das, was er das B-Wort und das H-Wort nennt, verbieten würde, beides gängige Beleidigungen gegen Frauen.

首先禁止的是N字母。现在，纽约市议会正在考虑一项措施，将取缔它所称的B字母和H字母，这两个常用的侮辱妇女的字眼。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Rachel Martin. For the second time in two weeks, one of New York City's finest will be laid to rest. Funeral services today for Officer Wenjian Liu will be held at a funeral home in Brooklyn. Liu and his partner Rafael Ramos were shot to death last month in their patrol car. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: At Ramos's funeral, scores of police officers turned their backs on the city's mayor in a sign of disrespect. The police commissioner is urging his officers not to repeat that gesture at Liu's funeral. NPR's Joel Rose reports. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: In a memo distributed to police across the city, Commissioner William Bratton asks officers not to repeat last weekend's act of disrespect toward Mayor Bill de Blasio when he delivers the eulogy today. The hero's funeral is about grieving not grievance, Bratton writes. At a press conference earlier this week, Bratton said the department has received dozens of threats on social media since Liu and Ramos were killed. POLICE COMMISSIONER WILLIAM BRATTON: Any threat made against my officers is going to be dealt with very quickly, very effectively. And we're not going to let any of them go by the board, believe me. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Those threats have led to at least 20 arrests. Many in the department and beyond see them as proof of an anti-police climate in the city; one they say Mayor de Blasio himself has encouraged. LEONARD LEVITT: He has set a tone that the rank-and-file and the many New Yorkers feel is truly anti-police. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Leonard Levitt is the author of the book "NYPD Confidential" and a blog of the same name. He says this feeling has its roots in the mayoral campaign when de Blasio ran and won on a promise to perform the relationship between the NYPD and communities of color. And Levitt says many cops don't like the way City Hall handled the aftermath of a grand jury's decision not to indict the white police officers in the case of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man who died in police custody. LEONARD LEVITT: There was a feeling among the police that the demonstrators were allowed free reign across the city. They were allowed to take the roadways, the bridges and whatever. And one former deputy commissioner said to me, there's going to be a tragedy coming out of this because you're setting a very dangerous tone. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Tragedy did strike on December 20 when Ismaaiyl Brinsley traveled from Baltimore to Brooklyn, where he shot officers Liu and Ramos before taking his own life. The head of the city's largest police union, Patrick Lynch, said Mayor de Blasio had blood on his hands. This week, Lynch and the heads of the other police unions sat down with the mayor for two hours before briefly addressing reporters. PATRICK LYNCH: There were a number of discussions, especially about the safety issues that our members face. There was no resolve, and our thought here today is that actions speak louder than words. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Mayor de Blasio didn't speak to reporters after the meeting and hasn't taken questions all week. But his backers insist de Blasio has supported the police. ERIC ADAMS: I don't think the mayor owes the police department an apology. I think he has been an extremely supportive mayor. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Eric Adams is the Brooklyn Borough president and a former sergeant in the NYPD. He expects rank-and-file officers will heed Police Commissioner Bratton's call not to turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio today. ERIC ADAMS: So I don't believe you're going to see a duplication of what you saw at Officer Ramos's funeral. I think you're going to see officers understand that this is a solemn time. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: There are signs that the NYPD's rank-and-file might have engaged in another kind of protest. Arrests across the city were down more than 60 percent for the week after the shooting of officers Liu and Ramos. Minor infractions and traffic tickets dropped more than 90 percent. But Police Commissioner Bratton tried to downplay the signs of a possible work slowdown. POLICE COMMISSIONER WILLIAM BRATTON: Dealing with the demonstration since December 3, we have used in excess of 50,000 tours of duty. So that's been a significant strain and drain on our resources around the city. That's 50,000 fewer cops who have been out there this month making arrests, issuing summons. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Bratton points out that the most important number, overall crime, was down 15 percent last week. For the year that just ended, New York City recorded fewer than 330 murders; the lowest total since reliable record-keeping began in the 1960s. But with today's funeral looming, no one at the NYPD is celebrating. JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Joel Rose, NPR News.

NYPD officer Wenjian Liu will be laid to rest Sunday. Liu and his partner were killed last month. Cops from around the U.S. will attend, and questions remain about how they'll greet Mayor de Blasio.

Der NYPD-Beamte Wenjian Liu wird am Sonntag beigesetzt. Liu und sein Partner wurden letzten Monat getötet. Polizisten aus den ganzen USA werden daran teilnehmen, und es bleibt fraglich, wie sie Bürgermeister de Blasio begrüßen werden.

纽约警察局官员刘文健将于周日下葬。刘和他的搭档于上月遇害。来自美国各地的警察将出席，以及他们将如何迎接白思豪市长，我们拭目以待。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: We're going to spend the next few minutes talking about spies, specifically Russian spies. Now, normally there might not be that much to talk about some spycraft is supposed to be invisible. But lately Russian spies have been all over the headlines. We have got two stories. And in a moment, we're going to meet a group of investigators who have been busy unmasking Russian intelligence officers. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: First we're going to dig into these headlines about the GRU, Russian military intelligence. And here to help us do that is NPR national security correspondent Greg Myre. Hey, Greg. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Hi, Mary Louise. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So the GRU has been around for a century, since around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution - but safe to say for a lot of us here in America, the first time we heard about them was 2016. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: That's correct, from the election hacking. But these are very busy guys and girls. They have been involved in this ongoing case of two GRU agents - alleged agents who are accused of poisoning Sergei Skripal in Britain. He's a former GRU agent himself who had - traded in a spy swap, was living in Britain. The difference, though - this case is filled with lots of glaring, almost comedic screw-ups. First of all, Skripal and his daughter survived the attack in March, which was was clearly not the intent. They were... MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: An assassination attempt that did not manage to assassinate the two people who were being targeted - go on. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: That is correct. And the two suspects were seen on the security cameras, which are all over Britain. And then the suspects go back - are back in Russia, and they make this very strange appearance on Russian television to explain what they were doing in Salisbury. ALEXANDER PETROV: (Speaking Russian). MARGARITA SIMONYAN: Salisbury. ALEXANDER PETROV: (Speaking Russian). MARGARITA SIMONYAN: (Speaking Russian). ALEXANDER PETROV: (Speaking Russian). GREG MYRE, BYLINE: So they're explaining that Salisbury is this beautiful town, and they were just tourists. And of course if you were going to England, you would make a trip to Salisbury... MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Of course. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: ...To see this tower. It's 123 meters high. And then they said, well, it was cold and slushy, and so they turned around after a couple days and headed back to Russia. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: OK, so fast forward to this month, to October and to some equally questionable spycraft on display in the Netherlands. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Right. And so this is sort of the follow-up. The Dutch announced just last week that they've caught four, they say, GRU agents with high-tech equipment in a rental car outside the office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was testing the chemicals apparently used in the attack back in March. Now, they were caught in a rental car. They apparently tried to smash some of this equipment. One of the phones was apparently traced to GRU headquarters in Moscow, had only been used a couple days earlier. They even found a receipt for a taxi from the barracks to the airport in Moscow. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: It sounds so clumsy. It almost makes you wonder if they wanted to be caught or at least didn't care if they were caught. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: I think what we could say is they really don't seem to care if they're caught. The Russians just deny, deny, deny, and there's no indication that they're stopping these kinds of actions. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: But what is the U.S. trying to do to stop these kind of actions? I mean, we keep hearing about indictments, for example, against GRU officers. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: That's right. The indictments against GRU officers - seven were announced last week, 12 from the Mueller investigation in July. So there is this naming and shaming and providing details at a level we really haven't seen previously. Now, one of the interesting developments is how to respond. Two months ago, President Trump has signed a directive that would streamline the ability of U.S. agencies to take action. So this is something to look forward to to see if this deters the Russians in any way. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Greg Myre, thank you. GREG MYRE, BYLINE: Thank you.

Abundant evidence points to Russian military intelligence carrying out murders, attempted murders and sabotage throughout Europe. The lack of secrecy could mean the GRU wants its actions to be known.

Zahlreiche Beweise deuten darauf hin, dass der russische Militärgeheimdienst in ganz Europa Morde, Mordversuche und Sabotageakte verübt hat. Der Mangel an Geheimhaltung könnte bedeuten, dass der GRU ihre Aktionen bekannt machen möchte.

大量证据表明，俄罗斯军事情报部门在欧洲各地实施谋杀、谋杀未遂和破坏活动。缺乏保密性可能意味着GRU希望自己的行动被人知晓。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump promised to cut the U.S.-China trade deficit. Well, just the opposite is happening. That gap reached a record level in September. NPR's Jim Zarroli explains. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: The trade deficit is the difference between what the U.S. buys from China and what it sells there. And in September, the gap reached $34 billion, a 14 percent increase over the same month a year ago. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNBC today there's a simple reason for the increase. STEVE MNUCHIN: My guess is it's more of a reflection of people loading up in advance of tariffs. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Mnuchin says a lot of American companies were rushing to buy Chinese products before the Trump administration's tariffs took effect. Economist Doug Irwin of Dartmouth College says that could account for some of the increase, but the trade gap has been growing all year. And Irwin says the reason is that Americans are just buying a lot. DOUG IRWIN: When the U.S. economy's growing and doing well, our trade deficit goes up because we're buying a lot more from the rest of the world. And China of course is a major supplier. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Irwin says part of the reason people are spending more is the Trump tax cuts, which have put more money in people's pockets. The dollar is stronger against China's currency. And there's another reason the trade gap is wider. When the U.S. imposed tariffs on China, China retaliated with tariffs of its own. DOUG IRWIN: U.S. exports to China have really taken a hit, particularly soybeans and other agricultural commodities. When they imposed their tariffs, those exports really were stopped in their tracks. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: This dynamic could change as the year goes on. The U.S. is scheduled to increase tariffs on Chinese goods even more in January if trade talks with Beijing haven't yielded any results. That may finally make Chinese products expensive enough that American consumers buy fewer of them. Jim Zarroli, NPR News.

China's trade surplus with the U.S. was up in September to a new high of $34.1 billion. Tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are not having the desired effect, at least not so far.

Der Handelsüberschuss Chinas mit den USA stieg im September auf einen neuen Höchststand von 34,1 Milliarden US-Dollar. Von der Trump-Administration verhängte Zölle zeigen zumindest bisher nicht die gewünschte Wirkung.

中国对美国的贸易顺差在九月上升到341亿美元的新高。特朗普政府征收的关税没有产生预期的效果，至少到目前为止没有。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: All right, let's move now to the political storm that had gripped Washington and the country last week. It is a storm that has calmed down now. Brett Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh. But the fallout from the bitter and divisive battle over his confirmation is still defining political conversation. When Kavanaugh was sworn in, President Trump apologized to the new justice for the rough confirmation process he had to go through. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception. What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Now, how that confirmation battle will ripple out into the midterm elections is one of the things we'll be talking about in our regular week in politics segment. To do that, I am joined by Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times. Thanks to both of you for coming in today. DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Good to be here. KAREN TUMULTY: Great to be here. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So, Karen, that bit of tape we just heard from President Trump talking about political and personal destruction - that's how some Republicans have been characterizing the opposition to Kavanaugh. But another way they've been describing the people who've turned out to protest is by using the word mob, by calling the angry left moblike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said this, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. CHUCK GRASSLEY: What we have learned is the resistance that has existed since the day after the November 2016 election is centered right here on Capitol Hill. They have encouraged mob rule. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Mob rule - Karen, was this some sort of coordinated strategy this week - you think several Republicans who just happened to choose the word mob? KAREN TUMULTY: Well, I think they've decided this is a good talking point. Of course it wasn't all that long ago that the sound of, you know, angry protesters was actually music to Republican ears back when it was the Tea Party protesters... AILSA CHANG, HOST: Sure. KAREN TUMULTY: ...Who were making it impossible for members of Congress to go to their own town halls without a police escort. And of course we have a president in the White House who has on a regular basis encouraged people at his own rallies to inflict violence on protesters there. But I think that the Republicans have decided - first of all, I guess hypocrisy is nothing new in politics, but they have decided that they see their own base a lot more energized in the wake of this whole fight over Kavanaugh. And they also think that they can use this idea of mob rule as a - you know, as a way of bringing home the idea of, what would it be like if Democrats are given back any of the levers of power? AILSA CHANG, HOST: But, David, I mean, the use of this word mob - a lot of the protesters these Republicans are referring to are women. Could describing women's response to all of this as moblike backfire for Republicans among women voters this midterm election? DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: I don't think so (laughter). You know, we... AILSA CHANG, HOST: Why not? DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: First of all, we live in an age of political polarization or what they call negative polarization, which means you don't particularly have to like your own party. You just have to really hate the other one. AILSA CHANG, HOST: (Laughter). DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: So the crucial issue is, are you appalled? Do you feel appalled at this moment? And that's what motivates people to get active and to go to the polls. And Democrats have been appalled pretty steadily for two years. The Republicans had little to be appalled about, but now they feel really appalled. And the core message in a world of negative polarization is the people who say you are bad are really bad themselves. And this is essentially the message Republicans are now driving home. And they've eliminated the Democratic advantage and enthusiasm. And in red states - not in blue states but in red states, you've begun to see the polls swing over in the Republican direction. AILSA CHANG, HOST: How about that? I mean, David's right. Both sides have clearly been galvanized by Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. We're less than four weeks away from this midterm election. Karen, do you see this fresh energy driven by the confirmation hearings reshaping battle lines before these elections? KAREN TUMULTY: Absolutely. If you look at the polls - and again, we have four more weeks before this election. And in this era, four weeks is what, you know, four years used to be. It does appear that this may be helping the Democrats in the House races, but it could be helping the Republicans in the Senate races in part because where those Senate battlegrounds are. They are - the biggest prizes in this - in the Senate elections are largely Democratic-held seats in states that Donald Trump won. And we are seeing a significant amount of movements in those polls toward the Republicans. AILSA CHANG, HOST: But you think it could help Democrats in House races because of the suburban women vote. KAREN TUMULTY: The biggest battlegrounds there are largely in the suburbs where we have - you know, again, the women's vote is going to be absolutely crucial. AILSA CHANG, HOST: OK, I want to switch gears now. Karen, late last week, your paper, The Washington Post, had a big blank space on the opinion page where a column from one of your paper's journalists, Jamal Khashoggi, should have been. Khashoggi has been a critic of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's - he disappeared about 10 days ago after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and he is now assumed to be dead. Your paper, Karen, tied his disappearance all the way to the crown prince personally. How did your colleagues make that direct link to bin Salman? KAREN TUMULTY: Well, you're right. The - you know, increasingly the presumption by intelligence sources on Capitol Hill and in the White House is that our colleague Jamal Khashoggi is dead and that Saudi Arabia is to blame. And one of the biggest pieces of evidence are U.S. intelligence reports that show that the crown prince actually ordered an operation to lure him back to Saudi Arabia, where he was supposed to be detained. The timing of all this is unclear, but it is - if what we are hearing from Turkish sources is true, which is that a - essentially a hit squad of 15 people was waiting for him in the consulate, it is just impossible to imagine that some kind of - that an operation like that would not have happened without the knowledge and approval of the very top levels of the Saudi government. AILSA CHANG, HOST: And when President Trump was asked about Khashoggi in the Oval Office yesterday - about an arms deal with the Saudis, this is how he answered. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We don't like it, John. We don't like it, and we don't like it even a little bit. But as to whether or not we should stop $110 billion from being spent in this country knowing they have four or five alternatives, two very good alternatives, that would not be acceptable to me. AILSA CHANG, HOST: David, let me turn it to you. Let me turn this to you. Should the U.S. be selling arms to Saudi Arabia right now? DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Well, I give the president credit for honesty. Usually when people sell their soul, they try to deny that they're selling it. He's pretty honest that we're selling our democratic principles. We're selling human rights. We're selling a U.S. resident's life down the tube for money. KAREN TUMULTY: Yeah. He even stipulated a price, so... DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Yeah. And so it's sort of mercantilism. It's like the axis of greed. And we and the Saudis are part of it. And the second thing that seems clear here is that we have spent the last couple years sucking up to the Saudis. And you would think if that would have a good effect on Saudi foreign policy, you'd think they wouldn't do this sort of thing. And so the idea of flattering people to get them to do your thing - flattering really dictatorial regimes does not seem to work. So I'd say it's a low and sullying moment for American foreign policy. AILSA CHANG, HOST: All right, that's David Brooks of The New York Times and Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post. Thank you guys both for coming in today. DAVID BROOKS, BYLINE: Thank you. KAREN TUMULTY: Thank you.

NPR's Ailsa Chang speaks with David Brooks of The New York Times and Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post, about the aftermath of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation and the disappearance of Saudi journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi.

Ailsa Chang von NPR spricht mit David Brooks von der New York Times und Karen Tumulty von der Washington Post über die Nachwirkungen der Bestätigung von Brett Kavanaugh am Obersten Gerichtshof und das Verschwinden des saudischen Journalisten und Kritikers Jamal Khashoggi.

NPR的张爱莎与《纽约时报》的大卫·布鲁克斯和《华盛顿邮报》的卡伦·图穆蒂就布雷特·卡瓦诺获得最高法院确认，以及沙特记者和评论家贾马尔·卡肖吉的失踪进行了交谈

NEAL CONAN, host: Now, what's next for the health care law? Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled a key part of that law unconstitutional, the requirement that every American buy health insurance. NEAL CONAN, host: The White House insists the rollout remains on track. Two other judges previously upheld that same provision. And it's all expected to wind up before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the ruling cheered conservatives, put Democrats on the defensive and raised questions about what this means now and down the road for health care. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg and NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner join us here in Studio 3A. If you have questions about the ruling and what it means: 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also send us questions on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. If you have questions about the ruling and what it means: Nina Totenberg, the legal basis of this decision by Judge Henry Hudson is the Commerce Clause. Is that right? NINA TOTENBERG: Yes. And he says that although the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Congress broad power to regulate economics -economic questions that cross state lines, that Congress does not have the power to regulate inactivity - meaning, if you choose not to participate in this, you should be free to do so. NINA TOTENBERG: Now, I just want to say one thing here. This decision, in some ways, says as much about our profession as it does about health care policy. There are, as you said, two decisions already that have upheld the law. This is the first that said it's not constitutional. And in much the way that we saw at the time of the post-9/11 - various things that were challenged in court, and we would all go into a tizzy every time a judge struck down some single thing - most of which are still standing. I just want to observe. NINA TOTENBERG: We wrote about it ad nauseam. You saw it on the front page of the newspaper. But it is just a single judge, and there are other judges who have contrary decisions. And until the Supreme Court rules on it, we shouldn't get too far out on a limb. NEAL CONAN, host: Julie Rovner, is that the reaction of the health care community? JULIE ROVNER: It very much is. And, actually, the White House had a briefing for reporters last week to remind us that there have been some 20 cases, 12 of them got dismissed without ever getting to the merits. So they've been completely thrown out. And as Nina said, there have been two that did reach the merits, that found it constitutional. The other thing about this particular case that really cheered supporters of the law is that the judge, kind of surprisingly, didn't strike - not only didn't strike down the rest of the law, he didn't even strike down a lot of other things that really go with this individual requirement, including requiring insurers to sell to people - to adults with preexisting medical conditions. JULIE ROVNER: So actually, the judge took an extraordinarily narrow view, only struck down that one provision. What the plaintiffs in this case had asked is that the judge strike down the entire law, which he rather pointedly refused to do. NEAL CONAN, host: Yet, Nina, we've seen conservatives, Republicans cheering this decision and saying, here we go. This is the beginning of the end. NINA TOTENBERG: Well, it may be the beginning of the end. But I have to tell you, you know, I went into the legal blogosphere today. And while there may be lots and lots of law professors who think this law is very bad policy, there are precious few who think it's unconstitutional. You go to all the sort of classic sites where you're looking for people to say this is not constitutional, and you don't find a lot of that kind of opinion. So it's really - it was sort of interesting to me. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm sure I did not delve in as deeply into the blogosphere as you did, but I did find some conservatives saying, wait a minute. We've just read Judge Hudson's ruling, and I think we made - he may have made some mistakes here. NINA TOTENBERG: There are a number of very notable conservatives who said that. And this is a little convoluted, but I'm going to try, in 30 seconds, to explain it. NINA TOTENBERG: Part of the Commerce Clause says that Congress may take any steps that are necessary and proper to enforce a national economy, in essence. And the courts, over the last hundred years, have interpreted that uniformly -the Supreme Court, anyway - to mean that you can go farther than what the Commerce Clause specifically says if you're trying to enforce the general powers of the Commerce Clause. So you could do things that are greater than what the Commerce Clause itself allows you to do. NINA TOTENBERG: And that's what people who defend this law say, is that insurance is one of those few areas where you have - everything - the kit is part of the caboodle. That if you - insurance requires lots of people to be part of it, otherwise nobody gets any protection and that that is sort of the essence of the idea here, and the mandate is part of that. NEAL CONAN, host: And Julie Rovner, as you've explained to us repeatedly over the past several years, yes, indeed, kit, caboodle, one and the other. The law does not work or the policy does not work without the mandate that everybody be insured. JULIE ROVNER: Although, interestingly, one of the other things that this ruling has done is it has started a conversation about how possibly this law could still work without the mandate. That maybe you could do something like what Medicare does, which Medicare part B, the doctor insurance is not - is voluntary. But what they do is that you must -well, if you're going to take it, you need to sign up when you first become age 65 or else you pay a large penalty for signing up later. JULIE ROVNER: So they're saying maybe we would have just an open enrollment once a year. And if you don't sign up, then you would pay more later. So, basically, rather than stick, have the carrot. Perhaps, that would get everybody in. NEAL CONAN, host: There is an email we have from Clint(ph), who writes the ruling against health care seemed to lack substance given that the federal income tax, of which the mandatory insurance is really a variety, has a long history as does mandatory car insurance. There seems to be a lot of things the government really makes us do. If we want to do... JULIE ROVNER: Right. NEAL CONAN, host: ...X we need to do B. NINA TOTENBERG: Well, one of the grounds the government is using to defend this statute is by saying, now, that it is in essence a tax. But the government - nobody made that argument when they were passing this, I guarantee you. And Judge Hudson didn't buy that. Him basically saying you didn't make the argument at the time when you enacted it, therefore it's too late. JULIE ROVNER: And actually, the two judges in the other cases that upheld the individual mandate, they didn't buy the tax argument either. NEAL CONAN, host: So... JULIE ROVNER: They did too a good job saying this wasn't a tax at the time, to say it's a tax now. NEAL CONAN, host: So they do listen to what the arguments were in Congress and other places as they're interpreting the law. NINA TOTENBERG: Well, most of them do. There are some judges who say, it doesn't matter what the purpose was. You know, Justice Scalia most famously doesn't believe that legislative history matters at all. NINA TOTENBERG: So, you know, it's just what the law says. NEAL CONAN, host: What is next? Are there other cases pending, Nina? NINA TOTENBERG: Well, there are lots of other cases floating around. By the time this gets to the Supreme Court, I don't know how many there will have been. Julie probably knows better than I do. She's - tracks... JULIE ROVNER: There are at least six more. The big case, the case that we've heard so much about, which is the case with the 20 attorneys general, the oral arguments are actually being heard tomorrow in Pensacola, Florida. So that's... NEAL CONAN, host: This was the attorney general of Virginia, in Virginia? JULIE ROVNER: The case that was - no, the case that was decided on Monday, right. NEAL CONAN, host: Yes. Yeah. JULIE ROVNER: Which - because Virginia has its own law that says you can't require people to have insurance, so he filed separately. But then, the multistate case, as we call it, with 20 other attorneys general that was filed in Florida is being - the oral arguments in that case are tomorrow. NEAL CONAN, host: And Nina, we heard an interesting argument that maybe we just ought to skip the appellate process, the intermediate process. Why don't we just send this puppy up to the Supreme Court? NINA TOTENBERG: Well, it's a nice argument that Eric Cantor, the soon-to-be Republican majority leader of the House, has made. But I don't think it'll fly, because if, for some chance, you could pass that, which you -I don't - I doubt you could. But if you could, President Obama, I feel sure, would veto it. NINA TOTENBERG: And you know what? The Supreme Court doesn't like being shoehorned that way. They like to see what the lower courts have to say. They like to see these issues percolate for a little while. That almost guarantees that we're probably going to get a Supreme Court decision in the year of the next presidential election. NEAL CONAN, host: That'll be interesting in and of itself. We're talking with NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg and Julie Rovner, NPR's health policy correspondent. If you have question for them about the recent decision that was handed down that struck down part of the health care law, what it means for the law, what it means for you, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: And Julie, I guess, that's the next question. Is the law now invalid? JULIE ROVNER: No. And the judge was very, very careful to say that, even, yeah, even Judge Hudson who ruled just this one small piece of it unconstitutional. That doesn't take effect until the year 2014. So he was very careful to say the rest of the law - the implementation of the law goes forward regardless. So, really, this is just sort of more talking points for Republicans who'd like to repeal it. JULIE ROVNER: In fact, John Boehner, the incoming speaker of the House, issued a statement that said, you know, maybe states should not waste a lot of time and effort implementing this given this court decision. But as Nina said, this is one, you know, U.S. district court judge. There are going to be 19 others who are going to rule. It's going to go to the appeals court levels. And eventually, it will get to the Supreme Court in all likelihood. So there will be - there's much further to go. And Congress, obviously, will take votes on whether or not to repeal this. But no, the implementation does not stop and does not need to stop. NEAL CONAN, host: Nina? NINA TOTENBERG: Yeah. You know, there's a very interesting aspect of all of this. It's sort of the intersection of politics and law. If Judge Hudson's decision were to become law - Julie talked about the conversation about how you might implement this. But Republicans have said consistently, we want to keep the good parts of this law, the ban on, you know, discrimination for preexisting conditions and all of those kinds of things. But we don't like the mandate. NINA TOTENBERG: But everybody does understand that without the mandate, there won't be the money to fund this, and that private insurance companies won't want to only take care of people who are on - as they, in the worst case analysis, sign up on the way to the hospital. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. NINA TOTENBERG: So if you have a system in which there is no funding mechanism but all the goodies are there, then that, obviously, pressures the country into a public option, ironically enough, because it's the fact that you're forcing people to have private insurance that Judge Hudson says is not appropriate, but there's nothing that says there can't be a public option. NEAL CONAN, host: A public option is the government is the... NINA TOTENBERG: Yes. NEAL CONAN, host: ...payer of last resort. NINA TOTENBERG: Right. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah. So we're talking about the health care law. 800-989-8255. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's talk with Sheryl(ph), Sheryl is on the line with us from Columbus. SHERYL (Caller): Yes. I want to know if they repeal this law that make health insurance mandatory, who then foots the bill for the people that will go to the emergency rooms in the hospitals with no insurance. NEAL CONAN, host: Julie? JULIE ROVNER: Well, now if the law got repealed then we would be back to square one, which is to say that people, when they - there is a federal law that says hospitals must treat people who have - who present with, you know, with emergency conditions. There, they must screen them and stabilize them, that's the law. And that goes, if they can't pay - they can obviously bill them. And if they can't pay, then the hospital eats that. There are special payments under Medicare and Medicaid to try and make up for that. JULIE ROVNER: But basically that's, you know, what we call uncompensated care. Hospitals try to make it up in extra, you know, in charging more to their privately insured patients. And basically that's the idea. That's what's behind the mandate. That's what the government is arguing in its case is that's the $43 billion in uncompensated care that people who don't have insurance are basically getting when they go to the hospital when they don't have insurance. NINA TOTENBERG: And I'm here to tell you as the wife of a trauma surgeon employed by a hospital that when you have somebody carried in half dead, you don't stop to ask whether the government is going to pay for this or private insurance. You just have - you are required, not only by federal law but under the Hippocratic Oath to take care of that person. SHERYL (Caller): Right. And I guess my comment then, the conversation we should be having is why that some should pay and others shouldn't pay even when they're capable. NEAL CONAN, host: Sheryl, thanks very much for the call. Appreciate it. SHERYL (Caller): Thank you. JULIE ROVNER: And that's the legal argument. That this is - that the individual mandate is necessary and proper under the Commerce Clause to get everybody paid for. That all - that virtually, that unlike other things like - unlike requiring someone to purchase a car or to purchase, you know, to eat broccoli or something else, that virtually everyone is going to consume health care at some point, and that there is an individual responsibility to pay for it upfront. JULIE ROVNER: That is the government, that's the essence of the government's case for this individual mandate. NEAL CONAN, host: You mentioned the intersection of politics and the law. The judge, Henry Hudson, appointed by President Bush, the second President Bush, I believe. And the other two judges who were appointed - who've decided on this, who've issued rulings on this, appointed in the Clinton administration. Are we going to see that kind of division, do you think, Nina? NINA TOTENBERG: No, I don't necessarily think so at all. First of all, just because when you look and see that so and so was appointed by President Clinton, that doesn't mean that the Republican senators from that state weren't saying we want this guy. Because that's the, you know, when there are two senators from an opposing party, they have to be consulted or that nomination doesn't move. So that's number one. NINA TOTENBERG: And number two, judges actually believe - most of them - in enforcing the law. Now, people have prejudices that they don't acknowledge, and they have prejudices that they acknowledge and say well, look, I hate this law but I think it's constitutional. And you can find lots and lots of instances of that in the history of American jurisprudence. NEAL CONAN, host: Another question, if and when this gets to the Supreme Court, would the newest justice, Elena Kagan, have to recuse herself? NINA TOTENBERG: There is not one scintilla of evidence that she has any intention of doing that. She was asked at her confirmation hearings whether she had anything to do with the law, the defense of the law, and she said absolutely not. So I think they're going to, you know, they tried at the confirmation hearing, I think, to get some sort of a commitment out of her or some sort of information and she didn't give them anything to go on. And I - she's had to recuse from 27 cases that were in progress at the time she was solicitor general. Just remember, she hasn't been solicitor general since last May, and these cases weren't there yet. They weren't started even. NEAL CONAN, host: So the next step then for the health care legislation: Are we expecting another round of measures that have to take effect, Julie? JULIE ROVNER: Yes. Well, I mean, we're continuing - the Department of Health and Human Services is writing regulations. They come out pretty much on a weekly or biweekly basis. As soon as the new Congress starts in January, though, the Republican House will expect to start holding hearings and, you know, summoning administration officials. I think we'll be seeing them on a regular basis at hearings. NEAL CONAN, host: And there's talk about defunding the law, not repealing it but defunding it. JULIE ROVNER: There will certainly be efforts to defund it. There will certainly be efforts to try - they can use something called the Congressional Review Act to try and disapprove some of these regulations. That's another tool that they can use. But again, you know, the Senate will still be controlled by Democrats. I don't know that there'll be that much stomach in the Senate for following through on these, so I think it will be a lot of show, and I'm not sure how much substance. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you both very much. We appreciate it. NINA TOTENBERG: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And we will stay tuned for the next round of judicial rulings on this point. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, Julie Rovner, NPR health policy correspondent, both with us here in Studio 3A. NEAL CONAN, host: Tomorrow, inmates in Georgia went on strike last week for better pay. We'll talk about jobs in jail. Plus, Senator Bernie Sanders on the eight hours he spent holding the floor of the United States Senate. Join us for that. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

A federal judge has ruled that a key part of the president's health care law — the requirement that every American buy health insurance — is unconstitutional. Some say that's one more reason to repeal the law, while others insist it remain on track. The Supreme Court will likely have the final say. Nina Totenberg, NPR legal affairs correspondent Julie Rovner, NPR health policy correspondent

Ein Bundesrichter hat entschieden, dass ein wichtiger Teil des Gesundheitsgesetzes des Präsidenten – die Anforderung, dass jeder Amerikaner eine Krankenversicherung abschließen muss – verfassungswidrig ist. Einige sagen, dass dies ein weiterer Grund ist, das Gesetz aufzuheben, während andere darauf bestehen, dass es auf dem richtigen Weg bleibt. Das letzte Wort wird wohl der Oberste Gerichtshof haben. Nina Totenberg, NPR-Korrespondentin für Rechtsangelegenheiten\nJulie Rovner, NPR-Korrespondentin für Gesundheitspolitik

联邦法官裁定，总统医疗保健法关键部分即要求每个美国人购买医疗保险，属于违宪做法。有人觉得又多了个理由废除这项法律，其他人则坚持认为该法律仍合理。最高法院可能拥有最终决定权。（消息来源：美国国家公共广播电台法律事务记者尼娜·托滕伯格； 美国国家公共广播电台健康政策记者朱莉·罗夫纳）

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh returns to Capitol Hill today. His first round of questioning yesterday lasted more than 13 hours, with plenty of debate, multiple interruptions from protesters. So what did lawmakers actually learn in this high-stakes job interview? Here's NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Nobody really disputes that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will tip the Supreme Court in a decidedly hard-right direction. Nonetheless, the Democrats had a hard time getting answers that would prove that. While Senators posed questions on a variety of issues, abortion was the focus more than any other single issue, and in particular, Kavanagh's dissenting opinion this year when the court that he serves on ordered the Trump administration to release a pregnant 17-year-old girl for an abortion paid for by a third-party organization. The girl was by then 15 weeks pregnant, and a Texas court had already ruled that she was mature enough to make the decision. Kavanaugh, however, said the government should be given more time. BRETT KAVANAUGH: The government argued that it was proper or appropriate to transfer her quickly first to an immigration sponsor. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Meaning a family member or friend who could counsel the girl. Kavanaugh thought that was a reasonable requirement as long as the government acted quickly. And he noted that the Supreme Court has approved parental consent laws for minors as long as a so-called judicial bypass is available. At that, Democrat Mazie Hirono of Hawaii could barely contain her contempt. MAZIE HIRONO: You can't just require parental consent, as in this case, where her parents were beating her up. How can you expect parental consent in a situation like that? So... BRETT KAVANAUGH: That would be a situation for the bypass. MAZIE HIRONO: Yes. BRETT KAVANAUGH: This was just an analogy for a woman who was a minor - that's critical - who was in a immigration facility by herself in the United States. And had... MAZIE HIRONO: She had already gotten a judicial bypass. There was no issue of parental consent, and in this case, you would have substituted a foster family for parental consent. That's not even an issue. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Democrat Richard Blumenthal sought to link Kavanaugh's opinion in the case to the nominee's nomination. Noting that Kavanaugh had not been on either of President Trump's first two lists of potential Supreme Court nominees during the campaign, Blumenthal, in essence, suggested that the abortion opinion had been an audition for the job. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: What occurred then, between May of 2016 and November of 2017, besides your Garza dissent that put you on that list? BRETT KAVANAUGH: Well, Mr. McGahn was White House counsel, and the president had taken office by then. What else happened, I... RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: It's a mystery. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: For all the Democrats' bluster, though, Kavanaugh remained generally unperturbed until California's Kamala Harris repeatedly asked him some form of this question about an unnamed person at the law firm of Kasowitz, Benson & Torres, which represented President Trump until partner Marc Kasowitz resigned as Trump's counsel last year. KAMALA HARRIS: Did you speak with anyone at that law firm about Bob Mueller's investigation? BRETT KAVANAUGH: I'm not remembering anything like that, but I want to know a roster of people, and I want to know more. KAMALA HARRIS: So you're not denying that you spoke with him? BRETT KAVANAUGH: I said, I don't remember anything like that. KAMALA HARRIS: OK. I'll move on. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Harris spent 5 1/2 minutes asking the same question over and over trying to get an answer, and she looked for all the world like she had new information to bring to the table. Then suddenly, she stopped, saying she would pursue the matter later, leaving a cliffhanger for today. Or maybe she doesn't have the goods, so stay tuned. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh returns to the witness chair today after a marathon round of questioning that lasted more than 13 hours Wednesday.

Der Kandidat für den Obersten Gerichtshof, Brett Kavanaugh, kehrt heute auf den Zeugenstuhl zurück, nachdem er am Mittwoch mehr als 13 Stunden lang befragt wurde.

最高法院大法官候选人布雷特·卡瓦诺星期三经过长达13个多小时的马拉松式审讯后，今天回到证人席。

ALEX COHEN, host: This is DAY TO DAY from NPR News. I'm Alex Cohen. ALEX CHADWICK, host: I'm Alex Chadwick. ALEX CHADWICK, host: As Congress left town on summer break this weekend, President Bush signed a law that will expand the government's ability to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and e-mails. The congressional vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was one of the last of the flurry of activities before Congress adjourned. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Joining us to look back at the flurry and the week ahead in politics, NPR's senior Washington editor Ron Elving. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Ron, welcome back and what's the headline out of this FISA bill signing, do you think? RON ELVING: The president got what he wanted, Alex. The president executed a perfect squeeze play on the Democrats, who are now, at least nominally, in control of the House and Senate, although with very narrow majorities in both chambers. And he used a combination of the approach of the congressional recess in August, his own power to call the Congress back into session during August or any other time that they're not here, and the extraordinary pressure that any kind of hint of another 9/11 brings to bear on the mind of any politician. ALEX CHADWICK, host: This was because there had been a court ruling that some of the government's wiretapping activities were not proper, not legal. So the intelligence community really last week put a lot of pressure on Congress to pass a law to make it okay to tap into these things again. RON ELVING: That's right. And the Democratic leaders - House and Senate - had been negotiating with Mike McConnell, who's the director of national intelligence, to come up with the way to patch the system. This gets down to kind of a technological issue, which is when you do switches for certain kinds of cell phone calls and e-mail, some of that switching takes place in different parts of the world that aren't necessarily the same part of the world where the telephone call or the e-mail was initiated. RON ELVING: So as a result a court ruled that some of this international surveillance was actually definable as domestic surveillance and therefore violative of the constitution because of course the whole bottom line on this program is you don't get a warrant. There's no court involved. So because there is no warrant, you're kicking in the basic protections that all Americans enjoy if you start surveilling them electronically in their e-mails and telephone calls. The big exception that's being made here is to fight terrorism by intercepting or surveilling these international communications, which the government believes could involve the plotting, the preparing of another terrorist attack. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Well, Congress did act and then did leave town. People are going home. Do you have any sense there in Washington of what members of Congress are expecting to hear this August back in their districts? RON ELVING: They're expecting to hear a great deal of discontent and unhappiness. All the polls show that right now something like 70 percent of the American people are not happy with the direction of the country. Many people are upset because the Democrats haven't done enough to stop the war. Other people are upset that the Republicans lost control of Congress last November and aren't showing enough support for the troops or that the Congress has gotten, in their view, off on a wrong track. A lot of people are unhappy with President Bush for any number of reasons. The sum total of all of it is not too many happy people out there. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Ron Elving, we are delighted and very happy that you are back with us again on Monday for another political review. NPR's senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Bye, Ron. RON ELVING: Thank you, Alex.

President Bush has signed a law that expands authority to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails. The House of Representatives' vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was one of the last moves Congress made before breaking for the summer.

Präsident Bush hat ein Gesetz unterzeichnet, das die Befugnisse zum Abhören von internationalen Telefongesprächen und E-Mails erweitert. Die Abstimmung des Repräsentantenhauses über den Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act war eine der letzten Maßnahmen des Kongresses vor der Sommerpause.

布什总统签署了一项法律，扩大了窃听国际电话和电子邮件的权限。众议院对《外国情报监视法案》进行了投票，此次投票是国会在夏季休会前最后进行的工作之一。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: On today's Roundtable, President Bush says the U.S. will no longer, quote, “stay the course” in Iraq, and should you hire a shrink for your baby? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joining us from our New York bureau is E.R. Shipp, professor in journalism, Hofstra University School of Communication, and John McWhorter, Manhattan Institute senior fellow in public policy. Plus in Nashville, Tennessee, at Spotland Productions, Jeff Obafemi Carr. He is host of the radio show Freestyle. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now welcome everybody, and let me go straight ahead to the White House. Two weeks shy of Election Day, the White House is changing its language and perspective on Iraq. The phrase stay the course is out. I'm not sure what's in, but this is what White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had to say. Mr. TONY SNOW (White House Press Secretary): The president is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory. But he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure and therefore enhance the clarification with a more - a greater precision. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Jeff, what was that? Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): (Unintelligible) there's a reversal of fortune, it was a change of mind. It was a change of terminology, and that's rare in this administration. It's rare in all Bush administrations, whether it's read my lips or stay the course. There tends to be a development of a certain phrase that's a catchall phrase, spreading freedom. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): We hear these words that are going to become a part of the lexicon of the political philosophy of the Bush administration, and we see this change. It's almost momentous in the sense. And it's kind of convenient that it's coming a couple of weeks before the elections when that is a huge issue. Iraq being here, where problems in Iraq had been placed squarely on this debate table for the American public to embrace as an issue. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): I don't know if it means anything. I think it's just a smoke and mirrors. I don't think it's going to mean a solid change in policy, although we also have heard that now we're going to try to get out of Iraq in 18 months. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): So I think time will tell whether this is just going to be more rhetoric or is this is just a way to keep from - keeping - having people incensed that we are staying the course when apparently the American public wants us to leave. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, E.R., just to get back to what Tony Snow said. You know, he was a broadcaster for Fox News. You're a professor in journalism. I wasn't very clear on that clip. Were you clear? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Professor E.R. SHIPP (Professor of Journalism, Hofstra University): Nor did I quite understand what he was saying in terms of the actual words he used. I understood what he was doing in terms of strategy. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What was he doing? Prof. SHIPP: He was trying to send a message out to those people who are gullible enough to believe that the United States has a real strategy. That we shouldn't remember what they've been saying in saying stay the course. And we should start thinking that they now have a real plan because they now think the Iraqis are going to be able to take over. Prof. SHIPP: But this is all - this is not going to happen. This - there was an interesting analysis in The New York Times. Let me read a little bit of it. Prof. SHIPP: Given the rise in sectarian killings, a Sunni-based insurgency that appears to be as potent as ever and an Iraqi security establishment that continues to have difficulties deploying sufficient numbers of motivated and proficient forces in Baghdad, General Casey, he is the commander in chief over there, General Casey's target seems to be an increasingly heroic assumption. Prof. SHIPP: The Iraqis have not even been able to come up with 2,800 good soldiers to work in the Baghdad area. So whatever Tony Snow's words were and whatever their goals are in terms of the elections, the reality is Iraq is not capable of taking over. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yes. So this - another story is saying, you know, 12 to 18 months, the Iraqis will be able to take full control of their own country. Prof. SHIPP: Ain't happening. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And, John, what do you think about that? And also is this moving from stay the course to stray the course? Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Well, obviously. Yeah, I mean whatever Tony Snow says and however he happens to put it, I think we have to see what he is actually referring to. And the key thing about Iraq is that really there's no such thing as Iraq the way there is such a thing such Poland or even in the United States. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): And the fighters that we're training to supposedly will be part of the Iraqi army are people whose deep-seeded loyalty is not to something called Iraq with a flag, but to their clan. It's much more local, and that's not something you can fix by, you know, putting pretty words together. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): And like, for example, crucial little insight. This Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdist Army is a fantastic army as these things go. They've got the discipline. Everybody is scared of them. They blow things up. And the fact is that those people, those conscripts are just these poor, raggedy, uneducated, unemployed people. Just the kinds who you would expect throughout world history would make a lousy army. The reason they are so good is because they are part of a clan. It's brothers and sisters and cousins and things like that. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Whereas, on the other hand, under the official Iraqi army in many places, including this highly-contested Anbar province, often only one out of three people show up. And so in terms of staying the course… FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, John, you know, just to point out, I mean there's a lot of reasons people might not want to sign up for the Iraqi army. Three hundred people died just during the month of Ramadan, which is a holy month. So a lot of people would consider this one of those tough jobs that you might not want to get. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Oh, sure. But people might also feel the same why about 21 of the militias where people get killed, too. So I'm just saying that there is a local kind of loyalty, that people are willing to die protecting their brother or their sister. But as we've often heard, they often don't want to go somewhere else and just defend Iraq, because to them that's not a realistic concept. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): That is what we're up against, and, you know, 12 months, 18 months that sounds nice. What he is basically saying is the year or a year and change. And he is just tossing that out there. I don't see what their actual plan is to cut through the very sectarian, clannish orientation that this supposed army has. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, let me ask you this, John. If there is so much sectarianism, and there is, how can we leave in 12 to 18 months? Won't that just cause the civil war that even some army officials have hinted could happen? Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): You know, the saddest thing, Farai, is that yes it would. If we left, those people will be at each other's throats. Moqtada al-Sadr's militia has lately been fighting another also Shiite militia. So we have this fragmentation. The fact is would our staying be any better? And how comfortable are we at this point sending our own, really children and generally children of the working class and below, to fight this. So I think we're in a really tough situation and… Prof. SHIPP: And General Casey is even suggesting they're going to send even more… Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): More. Prof. SHIPP: …soldiers to the region. I would say let's leave. Let them figure it out. We can be on the borders to maybe protect other countries who are our allies. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): And that means leave a civil war, and that's unfortunately what we did. I think we're almost stuck with it at this point. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): And in some ways we caused that, you know. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Yeah. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): That there was at least more stability. You know when you have - you know there's a problem when you have Iraqis who are saying that at least under Saddam Hussein we felt safe and secure. And if you stayed out of politics, you had order and safety around you. And I think that makes a statement that now there's been a lot of anarchy caused by the United States. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): They've sort of pulled out - there's a double-edged sword. You pull out and say we'll just let them fight over what's left. And at the same time you want them to fight over goals that you're setting, like developing a way to share the wealth of oil profits among every religious and ethnic group. I mean, I'd love to see a proposal like that in America where you share the profit for major corporations among all religious and ethnic groups. We don't do that here. So give that as a goal, and then just take off. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In L.A., we can go to Beverly Hills High and - go to Beverly Hills High and make them share the oil pumps in the backyard with Crenshaw High. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Not going to happen. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): You can have a civil war in California. Right? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Probably. Probably will be at some point. Actually, let me move on to another topic that is related to how we deal with the war on terror, you know, just in general. Now there has been a whole question in the United States about how we deal legally with detainees, and now governments around the world are saying hey, you know, we're treating detainees no worse than you are. Jordan is one of those nations. Is that really the worst possible example for us to set, E.R.? Prof. SHIPP: Well, it is an example that we have set. And we have to deal with that because of the confusion coming out of the Bush administration on what the policy will be, should be and is when it comes to detainees at Guantanamo and how we outsource prisoners to other countries where we know they will be probably be tortured - well, other countries are saying, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the United States sets the standard, we will follow that standard. Prof. SHIPP: Now, there's some cynicism in that, too, because the U.N. official who is making those comments wants to make a real point. He wants the United States to become more, I guess, committed to the Geneva Conventions, and committed to the whole notion of what the United Nations stands for when it comes to detainees. So there's a whole cynicism thing going on, but you can also see why other countries are saying if the United States can do it, we can do it, too. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): You know that's also, though, it's an incomplete story this point. Kind of like, you know, the rumor that Osama bin Laden had been caught and then we didn't hear anything. In this case, everything that E.R. says is true, but we have to wonder because officially, it's only Jordan that we're talking about at this point. It's not a whole chorus of countries. And unless we know exactly what kind of torture we're talking about in Jordan, it's hard to say. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): It's not as if we've heard this from, say, Syria or Pakistan where it's quite clear the sorts of things that they will do. And the general supposition has been that these are more overtly destructive, hideous things than anything that even the Bush administration - who has been ridiculously cagey about this, and it scares me, too - has ever been. I mean, torture - you know, read about what happened in Algeria with, you know, the French torturing people in the ‘50s. We're talking about degree here. So I'd just be interested to know, other than Jordan, who else would be trying to use what we did as an excuse? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, one thing in this report that stuck out to me was that the U.N. envoy, he's actually - his title is Special Investigator on Torture. Now, that's a title - Manfred Nowak. Prof. SHIPP: How does one qualify for that job, I wonder? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah, yeah. How does one qualify not to take that job? That's what I would be asking myself. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): Now that's not one I would take. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But, you know, he was saying that he tried to go to Russia and interview detainees and he couldn't see them. And, you know, he couldn't go to Guantanamo and interview detainees. So it's not even just a question of, you know, what actually is happening. But it's also, is there transparency? Is there openness? Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): And the answer is no. You know. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): I don't think there's much transparency or openness. And it's very interesting, because it's not as if he hasn't been invited to Russia. It's not as if Nowak has not been invited to Guantanamo. He's been invited to Guantanamo and Russia with a condition: well, you can come and visit. Please inspect the facility. Just don't - you can't talk to any of the detainees. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Now, inviting somebody to visit a facility but refusing him access to the detainees is like inviting a food critic to review your restaurant without letting him sample the food, then ask him for a golden review. And I think that's what Nowak is saying here. How do we expect the world to react? Sure. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): We see it in Jordan. We don't hear it in Pakistan yet. We don't hear it in Syria yet, but we're hearing the grumblings. When you hear stories of Pakistani young men who were part of the detainees, or one of the detainees at Guantanamo who were cleared, and basically, came home a different person. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): They were shadows of the people that they were, and now are becoming folk legends in their communities that are inspiring people to go out and fight, because the only thing this person had other than a different personality that was diminished was a letter saying that you're no longer considered a terrorist. You're cleared. But no explanation and no apology for what they went through in those facilities. So I think that those kind of things began to fuel movements that will be anti-U.S. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): Yeah. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. E.R., let me move you on to a different topic: therapists treating infants. Now, the field of mental health goes, you know, over all sorts of things from severe mental illness to, you know, baby blues and - all sorts of things. But now, there's been a lot of study of how mothers treat children if they themselves, for example, are depressed. But now, therapists want to treat the babies. Is that backwards or is this progress? Prof. SHIPP: I don't know what this is, Farai. When we were children - and that wasn't all that long ago. We're not talking about once upon a time way back when. You had elders in the community who knew how to help mothers raise their babies. They had seen certain things. They could work with the mothers and the infants. Maybe the answer is to go back to something like that rather than going to therapists. That, to me, reminds me of something that I came across a few years back where some neighbors of mine were taking their cats to psychiatrist - cat psychiatrist. Prof. SHIPP: And the cats were being given stuff like Prozac and stuff, and it's like come on. What are we doing here? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And I bet that they were charged a ton of money for that, too. Prof. SHIPP: Yeah. So what are we doing here? Let's go back to the basics. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): You know, I think that - it's interesting, as that's the kind of story that I think it can sound a little froufrou. It sounds like some sort of, you know, Upper West Side conceit. But the fact is that we might be making advances in how parents might often unintentionally communicate things to their small children. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): And to the extent of this is therapy, it's really about interactions between the parents and the babies, rather than going goo-goo at the baby in laying the baby back on a couch. There might be something to it, because, you know, very early in life, you can really, really F, dot, dot, K up a child without knowing it. And maybe we can learn things about that that even the grand old elders may not have known. Just a thought. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, you know, I mean, and I think that is definitely worth talking about. But these sessions are like $85 to $250 per, and some people are just going to be totally priced out to them. I think it's going be… Prof. SHIPP: They don't need to be in it in the first place. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): That's kind of the - yeah, that's kind of an interesting thing. They're always - there's this notion of its easier to build a child than it is to fix an adult. And I think that you can lean that way in the social sciences, too. And something E.R. referenced was very important. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): You know, in many African countries, there's the notion of when a child is born, you pair them with the grandparents or the great grandparents and the elders. One just coming from heaven, one getting closer to there. And there's some connection there. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): And I remember when I had my daughter. I asked my sister - this poor, sweet, loving woman that she is - to watch my daughter for a couple of hours. I kind of came back to get some keys I left at the house ten minutes later, my sister and my daughter were gone. And I said what happened? And I went to my mom's house, and my sister was there because the baby started crying. She didn't know what to do. And she ran to my mom's house and she - you know, my mom. My mom had the baby and was calm. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): And there was nothing wrong with the baby. So in that instance, there's something about that maternal wisdom that allows that connection. Whereas my sister at that time, bless her soul, she may have taken that child to a psychologist if my mom hadn't been around. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, and dropped another 250 bucks. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): Another 250. CHIDEYA: We'll have to leave it right there. We've been talking to Jeff Obafemi Carr, host of the radio show Freestyle, John McWhorter of the Manhattan Institute and E.R. Shipp of Hofstra University School of Communication. Thank you all so much. Prof. SHIPP: Thanks. Mr. JOHN MCWHORTER (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute): Thank you. Mr. JEFF OBAFEMI CARR (Host, Freestyle): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And as always, if you'd like to comment on any of the topics you've heard on our Roundtable, you can call us at (202) 408-3330. That's (202) 408-3330. Or you can send an e-mail, just log on to npr.org and click on Contact Us. And please be sure to tell us where you're writing from and how to pronounce your name. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Next on News & Notes, the original Chicano, Chicano - a new film about folk legend Lalo Guerrero, and for the first time, a reporter from the black press heads to Iraq. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You're listening to News & Notes from NPR News.

Wednesday's topics: President Bush says the United States will no longer "stay the course" in Iraq; racial tensions divide white and black Masons in the South. Guests: Hofstra University journalism professor E.R Shipp; John McWhorter, Manhattan Institute senior fellow in public policy; and Jeff Obafemi Carr, host of the radio show Freestyle.

Themen vom Mittwoch: Präsident Bush sagt, die Vereinigten Staaten werden im Irak nicht länger \„den Kurs halten\“; Rassenspannungen trennen weiße und schwarze Freimaurer im Süden. Gäste: Journalistikprofessor der Universität Hofstra, ER Shipp; John McWhorter, Senior Fellow des Manhattan Institute für öffentliche Ordnung; und Jeff Obafemi Carr, Moderator der Radiosendung Freestyle.

周三议题：布什总统表示，美国将不会在伊拉克“坚持到底”；种族紧张局势导致南方白人和黑人共济会成员分裂。嘉宾：霍夫斯特拉大学新闻学教授希普；曼哈顿研究所公共政策高级研究员约翰·麦克沃特以及电台节目《自由泳》主持人杰夫·奥巴费米·卡尔。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: For more, we're joined by the executive director of Jenesse Center, Karen Earl. She's in the Big Apple attending Glamour magazine's Woman of the Year awards, and this past June in Glamour, actress Halle Berry named Earl as one of her personal heroes for the work that she's done helping victims of domestic violence. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Welcome. Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you're a busy woman, about to actually have a moment where you can bask in the spotlight, but usually you're behind the scenes. What I was impressed by when we spoke to Annie was the way that she came to view her whole life differently, not just whether or not she was with a specific abusive man, but just her whole sense of self-worth. What does your program do step by step to try to bring women into a fuller understanding of themselves? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): I think the first thing is to let that woman know that she is not alone, that someone cares about her children and that her children - we see them as - I have a problem with that word, victim - but we see them as equals in this struggle. And what I think our job is, to help the women to make good decisions for their lives. And we do that with assessment, with case management in providing all of this in a nurturing, non-threatening environment, and just letting them know how special they are every day. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You have all sorts of programs, whether it's emergency housing, transitional housing, jobs and education programs. What do you do, for example, for a woman who's never worked outside the home to support herself and her children before? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): Jenesse was one of the first agencies to start an onsite educational vocational program when the women came into emergency shelter. We relied a lot on census data and of course assessments to find out exactly where this population is. And you know, it's easy for me to say, you know, come on to the shelter, you know, you can do better. Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): But if you have no job skills, not worked outside of the home, and no finances, then it's a revolving circle. It is our responsibility to introduce the woman to opportunities to lead her to financial stability. And again, our job is to help her make good decisions. So we introduce computers and even how to turn a computer on and have people come in who've made it, and just share their stories. And you know, it's like if I see you do it, then I can do it. And that is the approach. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Do you worry sometimes about the people who call the hotline but then say, you know what, I don't want to do anything right now, I really can't leave? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): I don't know if I worry. But when I have that person on the phone, I try my best to be as comforting, as supportive, and to listen and to share and to let her know that that hotline is open 24 hours a day and there's always going to be somebody there and she can call back. And the first question we're going to ask: Are you safe? Can you talk? So I have to put my worry into action. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's what you've been doing, you know, for years. How did you get into this work? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): It was all an accident. I had no idea that there were places where women and children could come. I had a corporate job and I took a leave of absence. And one day I was talking with Dr. Marguerite Archie-Hudson, and she told me about a group of women in South Los Angeles. She says they have a good idea, but they need some help. And I went over and I started volunteering and working. And there were shelters and programs and possibilities. Back then, it was more a possibilities. And it struck me so much because my mom was an evangelist and a missionary, yet there was violence in my home. And we - it was just family business. Who knew that there was a way out? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What would you say to someone who is afraid that they might be an abuser, and they are actually abusing someone who they say they love? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): At the end of the day, my job is to strengthen families, and we don't want to - we're not batterers of men. I'm intrigued by what makes someone who says he loves his family batter them. What's going on with him? So, if we're truly serious about ending domestic violence, we're going to have to start working with that population so that families can be together. Because what we know, in the majority, is that women don't want their husbands in jail. They don't want to leave them. They want them to stop hitting them. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And finally, what would you say to someone - you know, as if you were talking on the hotline - someone's out there listening, and they are going to have to make a decision about whether or not they are in an abusive relationship and what to do about it - what would you say to that woman? Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): First thing I always ask is how are the children? I believe when we know the impact of this violence and the trauma, domestic terrorism on our children, we look for better ways. But I'm not a clinician. My job is to provide vehicles for women to call, and that when they do call that a trained, compassionate caring person is on that phone to know what to say, when to say it, and how to say it so that this person is not re-victimized, but to say, you know, I deserve better. My children deserve better, and I'm going to do something to change my life. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Karen, thank you very much. Ms. KAREN EARL (Executive Director, Jenesse Center): Thank you very much. I'm honored for the opportunity. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Karen Earl is the executive director of Jenesse Center, a Los Angeles-based non-profit dedicated to helping women and children escape domestic violence. She joined us from NPR's New York bureau.

Karen Earl, executive director of the Jenesse Center, a women's shelter in Los Angeles, talks about the work the center does to help women recover from abuse.

Karen Earl, Geschäftsführerin des Jenesse Centers, eines Frauenhauses in Los Angeles, spricht über die Arbeit des Zentrums, um Frauen zu helfen, sich von Missbrauch zu erholen.

凯伦厄尔是洛杉矶一家妇女庇护所 Jenesse Center 的执行董事，她谈到了该中心为帮助妇女从虐待中恢复所作 的工作。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Since the show's 1963 debut, the British science fiction series "Doctor Who" has always had a male actor in the lead role - until now. NPR's TV critic Eric Deggans says the first "Doctor Who" episode featuring Jodie Whittaker, which airs today on BBC America, breaks ground in a surprising way. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: What may be most revolutionary about the new "Doctor Who" is how unrevolutionary this first episode feels. Yes, it is wonderful to finally have the show's hero - an alien who regenerates into a different form instead of dying - finally played by a woman after 55 years. And when that woman is the excellent British actress Jodie Whittaker, you get a scene that explains that transformation like this. JODIE WHITTAKER: (As The Doctor) There's this moment when you're sure you're about to die. And then, you're born. Right now, I'm a stranger to myself. There's echoes of who I was and a sort of call towards who I am. I'll be fine in the end. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Of course, this is "Doctor Who." It always turns out all right in the end, mostly. Whittaker plays The Doctor, a centuries-old time-traveling Time Lord who rights wrongs across the universe. Her first episode is a fast-paced but kind of generic adventure that could've featured any of "Doctor Who's" past male stars. It's got a simple plot. An alien has plopped down in England with nefarious plans. The Doctor must stop him while coping with her own recent changes. Whittaker's predecessor, Scottish actor Peter Capaldi, initially played The Doctor as an alien who could be callous. His evolution into a caring Doctor - someone who would sacrifice himself for lesser beings rather than be annoyed by them - was a central arc of Capaldi's three seasons on the show. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Here's a speech from his last regular season episode. PETER CAPALDI: (As The Doctor) I'm not doing this because I want to beat someone. It's not even because it works because it hardly ever does. I do what I do because it's right. And, above all, it's kind. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Whittaker's Doctor has no such issues. In a showdown, she tells the bad guy exactly where she stands. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) Who are you? JODIE WHITTAKER: (As The Doctor) Bit of adrenaline, dash of outrage and a hint of panic knitted my brain back together. I know exactly who I am. I'm The Doctor, sorting out fair play throughout the universe. Now, please get off this planet while you still have a choice. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Still, Whittaker's first episode doesn't tell us much about her character. Like previous Doctors, she's brilliant, eccentric and surprisingly attached to human life in Britain. She accepts her gender change with barely a hiccup when a police officer points out the obvious. MANDIP GILL: (As Yasmin Khan) Hold on there, please, madam. I need you to do as I say. This could be a potential crime scene... JODIE WHITTAKER: (As The Doctor) Why are you calling me madam? MANDIP GILL: (As Yasmin Khan) Because you're a woman? JODIE WHITTAKER: (As The Doctor) Am I? Does it suit me? MANDIP GILL: (As Yasmin Khan) What? JODIE WHITTAKER: (As The Doctor) Oh, yeah. I remember. Sorry. Half an hour ago, I was a white-haired Scotsman. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: "Doctor Who" often features Doctors who speak to the times. When James Bond was popular in the early '70s, dashing Jon Pertwee played The Doctor. In 2010, 20-something Matt Smith was a millennial-aged Doctor. Now, a female Doctor emerges when the subject of women's empowerment is front-page news. But in this first episode, Whittaker shatters stereotypes, mostly, by acting like her male predecessors. She has a mostly unquestioned authority. There's no annoying romantic subtext. She doesn't exist mostly to be saved from danger or inspire revenge or be someone's conscience - all tropes for female characters found throughout science fiction and in past "Doctor Who" episodes. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Fans know the first episode featuring a new Doctor is often awkward. The writers and actor haven't fully clicked with the character, which may explain why new showrunner Chris Chibnall's first episode with Whittaker doesn't feel particularly exceptional, beyond introducing a great supporting cast. But there's also something powerful about just getting on with it and letting the new Doctor be her own woman in her own time. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: I'm Eric Deggans.

Jodie Whittaker debuts as the first woman to play the lead in the 50-year-old British sci-fi show, Dr. Who. It's an action-packed start to a highly anticipated season.

Jodie Whittaker gibt ihr Debüt als die erste Frau, die die Hauptrolle in der 50 Jahre alten britischen Science-Fiction-Serie Dr. Who spielt. Es ist ein actiongeladener Start für eine mit Spannung erwartete Staffel.

朱迪·惠特克是第一个在已有50年历史的英国科幻剧《神秘博士》中担任主角的女性。这是令人期待的新一季的开始。

ALEX COHEN, host: One of the big advantages of using a debit card instead of a credit card is that you won't rack up a big credit card debt, because you're never allowed to spend more than you actually have in your checking account. Or at least that's what most consumers think. But as many have discovered too late, you can actually overdraw on your debit card. ALEX COHEN, host: Joining me now to explain is DAY TO DAY's personal finance contributor Michelle Singletary. Hi, Michelle. MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Hi. ALEX COHEN, host: So Michelle, your card limit is supposed to be the same amount that's in your checking account. So how can you bounce a debit card transaction? MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Well, apparently very easily. Essentially what the banks do is advance you a loan. You make a transaction, and if you don't have enough, they go ahead and process that. And as a result, you incur an overdraft fee. ALEX COHEN, host: What's the typical overdraft fee? MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Well, typically it cost about $34 when you go over whatever you have in your account, and it doesn't matter how much that overdraft is. So let's say you make a purchase for $7 and you don't have that in your account; you can be charged $34 on that $7. ALEX COHEN, host: And let me guess, the bank probably doesn't tell you that this is going to happen before it happens, right? MICHELLE SINGLETARY: That's right. They do not warn you. When you're at that terminal and you're punching in and you think you have enough and it goes in and approves, there's no sort of feedback that says, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, you don't have enough in your account. ALEX COHEN, host: Are the banks making out on these fees? I mean, $34, that's not chump change. MICHELLE SINGLETARY: It is not. The Center for Responsible Lending did a survey recently and showed that in terms of debit card transactions and ATM fees that are overdraft, the banks are collecting $7.8 billion - that's with a B - in overdraft fees. And that's about 45 percent of the 17.5 billion they get for other overdraft fees. So debit card transactions and ATM transactions in which people overdraft their accounts, banks are collecting a lot of money on this. ALEX COHEN, host: Let's say this for the sake of argument here that you're one of those people who doesn't always have a clear mental image of the exact total in their bank account; is there someway that you can order your bank not to let you overdraft? MICHELLE SINGLETARY: Absolutely. Typically now when people sign up for a checking account, they automatically sign up for this overdraft protection, whether they know it or not. Well, what you need to do is write a letter and say, I don't want that protection. I don't want you to charge me. I want you to decline the transaction if I don't have enough in my account. MICHELLE SINGLETARY: You can also get other types of overdraft protection that is cheaper. For example, you can link your checking to your savings account. Of course, you need to have a cushion in there so that if anytime there's a transaction that comes through and you don't have enough in your checking, they automatically pull it out of your savings. That's what my husband and I do. Or you can attach it to a line of credit. And even though that can be costly, it's not as much as incurring overdraft fees. ALEX COHEN, host: That's DAY TO DAY personal finance contributor Michelle Singletary. Thanks so much, Michelle. MICHELLE SINGLETARY: You're welcome.

Debit cards may seem attractive to consumers who want to avoid racking up credit charges, because they appear to have the safeguard of drawing from your checking account. But it is possible to overdraw from your debit card, and the resulting fees are very high. Here's how to avoid such charges.

Debitkarten können für Verbraucher attraktiv erscheinen, die keine Kreditgebühren anhäufen möchten, da sie anscheinend die Sicherheit haben, von Ihrem Girokonto abzuheben. Es ist jedoch möglich, von Ihrer Debitkarte zu überziehen, und die daraus resultierenden Gebühren sind sehr hoch. So vermeiden Sie solche Gebühren.

借记卡似乎对那些想避免累积信贷费用的消费者很有吸引力，因为它们似乎有从你的支票账户中提款的保障。但是，用借记卡透支是有可能的，而且由此产生的费用也非常高。以下是如何避免此类收费的方法。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Two years ago today, a gunman opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. He killed 26 people, 20 of them were first-graders. Six-year-old Ana Greene was one of the children who died that day. Her father, Jimmy Greene, is a jazz saxophonist. And he recently recorded an outcome called "Beautiful Life," dedicated to his daughter's memory. This story was reported by Craig LeMoult of member station WSHU, and it first aired last month when Jimmy Greene's album came out. We play it again today to remember all those who died at Sandy Hook Elementary. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: The first song on Jimmy Greene's new album is an arrangement of "Come Thou Almighty King." CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: The hymn was in a piano book that Greene's son, Isaiah, was learning. JIMMY GREENE: And he would be practicing at home. And in the book they included the lyrics as well. My daughter, who always loved to be around my son when he was practicing, she would be around the piano. And she sung the lyrics while he was playing. ANA: (Singing) Come thou almighty king. Help us thy name to sing. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: For months after Ana was killed in Newtown, Greene says he didn't have the strength or desire to think about music. JIMMY GREENE: But I felt increasingly less and less like myself, and I needed to get back to some sense of structure and routine and to some sense of getting back to what I do 'cause when there's not an accurate way to express my emotion or my struggle or my trauma, there's music. It's helpful in that way. It's akin to talking it out with someone. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: Greene wrote the song "Seventh Candle" around the time the family should have been celebrating Ana's seventh birthday. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: After news of Greene's loss spread, record producer and music publisher Norman Chesky called and offered a studio and all of the labor for recording an album completely free, and Greene could have full ownership of the results. NORMAN CHESKY: He's a very talented composer, and I just figured that it would be a good way for him to pay tribute to his daughter. And also, as an artist, this would be a great way for him to express himself. And I just thought that maybe something positive could come out of this tragedy. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: That offer helped focus Greene on composing this album, his first to include lyrics. He says writing them was the hardest part. JIMMY GREENE: Sitting in my basement where I have my work area by myself and writing the songs and writing the lyrics, there was a lot of tears. There was a lot of anguish. JIMMY GREENE: (Singing) Ana had a way about her. (Accompanied by chorus) Giving lots of hugs each day. JIMMY GREENE: She had a way of knowing if you needed a hug. She had a way of just communicating her love for everyone around her. When I'd go to kiss her cheek if she was leaving the house or if I was going somewhere, she would step back and she would pucker up like she wanted to kiss. She wanted to do the kissing. Like, she didn't want to be the one accepting the kiss. She wanted to be the one giving it. JIMMY GREENE: (Singing) We'll miss her smile. Though way too short, her life teaches us a lesson. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: Green says that lesson is love your neighbor. JIMMY GREENE: She showed love to, you know, everybody she came in contact with. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: Some of the children Ana loved are featured on the album. They're part of a children's choir made up of classmates of Ana and her older brother when they lived in Canada before the family moved to Newtown. Greene says some of Ana's friends were crying too hard to sing. JIMMY GREENE: They just missed her. They missed their friend. And it was tough to be in the room while they were singing these lyrics that I'd written. UNIDENTIFIED CHILDREN: (Singing) Ana. JIMMY GREENE: (Singing) Ana. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: There are some up-tempo songs on the album. Greene says his daughter liked to dance. But one of her favorite songs was "Maybe" from the musical "Annie." JIMMY GREENE: She would sin it a lot in the car as we were driving. And just the feeling of her singing the melody just by herself is something I wanted to capture on the album. And I recorded it - essentially just the melody - me playing it on soprano saxophone, which is the closest thing that I can play to my little girl's voice. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: Proceeds from the album will support The Artists Collective, a music program for at-risk youth in Hartford, Connecticut, where Jimmy Greene learned to play. And they'll support a program in Ana's name is developing school curricula on empathy and training on topics like violence prevention and trauma recovery. JIMMY GREENE: The last lyrics you hear the album are remember me, remember me, over and over again. I want Ana to be remembered. I want what happened here to be remembered so that we do something. CRAIG LEMOULT, BYLINE: For NPR News, I'm Craig Lemoult. UNIDENTIFIED CHILDREN: (Singing) Remember me. Remember me. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You're listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

Greene's album is dedicated to his 6-year-old daughter, Ana, killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This story first aired on Nov. 28 on All Things Considered.

Greenes Album ist seiner sechsjährigen Tochter Ana gewidmet, die bei den Schießereien in der Sandy Hook Elementary School getötet wurde. Diese Geschichte wurde erstmals am 28. November bei All Things Considered ausgestrahlt.

格林的专辑是献给他在桑迪胡克小学枪击案中丧生的6岁的女儿安娜的。这个故事在11月28日首次在《万物》节目中播出。

NEAL CONAN, host: Most of us on Thanksgiving gather with family and friends. The menu and the festivities are often the same: a look at the big parade in New York on TV, maybe a game of touch football. NEAL CONAN, host: Each year on this holiday, we ask for stories about who's not at your table this year. About absent friends, someone in Afghanistan maybe or Iraq, somebody you've lost since this time last year. Maybe somebody has to work today. NEAL CONAN, host: 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. NEAL CONAN, host: We've gotten some emails already, this one from Gail(ph). I was driving home thinking and prepare about - preparing piecrust and turkey this evening when I heard Neal ask who's missing from your Thanksgiving table this year. We're very fortunate to have all the grandparents at our table tomorrow and all of our children, except one, our son Jay(ph). Jay is serving with the Army in Iraq this Thanksgiving. His wife and new son will travel from Germany to join us tomorrow to celebrate our grandson's first Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, Jay will miss this first Thanksgiving with his new son. We're so honored to have them with us. NEAL CONAN, host: As you do your Thanksgiving preparations and traveling this year, please remember the brave sons and daughters of our nation who are serving their country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of them, we are able to be a truly safe and thankful nation this Thanksgiving. Thank you to all our men and women in uniform and happy Thanksgiving to everyone. NEAL CONAN, host: We also got this from Danielle(ph) in Novato, California. This year, we will not be having Thanksgiving at my father's house as he passed away in October from a two-year battle with cancer and dementia. Last year, at this time, he was in India, determined to get back there before he died and being chaperoned by some kind Indian friends. The year before, he checked himself out of a nursing home against medical advice because he refused to spend Thanksgiving with them and wanted to spend it with his three children. NEAL CONAN, host: He loved Thanksgiving. However, never properly prepared for it, so it was often interesting to one to see how we were going to cobble together a meal with the ingredients that he did by always including Tofurky instead of turkey. NEAL CONAN, host: This year, though, we will be joined by his first grandchild, my three-month old son who we were fortunate enough to meet - was fortunate enough to meet his grandfather a couple of times though he will never remember. NEAL CONAN, host: Again, our phone number, 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Who are the absent friends at your Thanksgiving dinner table this year? NEAL CONAN, host: We'll start with Danielle(ph). Danielle calling us from Fort Campbell in Kentucky. DANIELLE (Caller): Hi. NEAL CONAN, host: Happy Thanksgiving. DANIELLE (Caller): Thank you. We're getting ready to walk out the door to go spend some time with some friends of mine, three other ladies, and all our husbands are deployed. NEAL CONAN, host: All your other husbands are deployed. DANIELLE (Caller): Mm-hmm. NEAL CONAN, host: In Afghanistan and Iraq. DANIELLE (Caller): Afghanistan, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: And that's got to make it an interesting day. DANIELLE (Caller): It's our fourth deployment so we're used to it. NEAL CONAN, host: Sadly, I suspect. DANIELLE (Caller): Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: And I wonder, how do the rituals change when the men are overseas? DANIELLE (Caller): Usually, it's wives who get together with a whole group of kids and we - instead of everybody cooking a big meal, you know, we all cook a couple of dishes and get together and the kids run wild and we eat. And somebody's cell phone always goes off in the middle of the meal because it's their husband calling, and we just have a great time together. NEAL CONAN, host: A little less football then perhaps might be otherwise. DANIELLE (Caller): Yeah. Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: Danielle, thank you so much for sharing your day and good luck to everybody. DANIELLE (Caller): Thank you. Bye-bye. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email we have from Christine in Hong Kong. I am the one who won't be at the Thanksgiving table this year. I teach English in Hong Kong, and haven't been to a family Thanksgiving in four or five years. Thankfully, I have friends here to celebrate American Thanksgiving with, but it's still a hard day for me. Not only do I have to work, I miss my family gathering. Some years, I call my family by Skype and can talk to them that way. This year, the dinner is at my grandparent's place. They don't have a computer, so I will not be able to see or talk with them at all. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we could go next to Seth(ph) and Seth's with us - Seth is with us from Route 85 in South Carolina. SETH (Caller): Hello. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi, Seth. SETH (Caller): Yeah. I'm headed back right now. I just left my family in North Carolina, and it's not so much fun to leave right before, you know, Thanksgiving dinner is going to happen. NEAL CONAN, host: But why did you have to go? SETH (Caller): Well, I work Black Friday tomorrow, so I have to wake up at 2:00 in the morning. So I'm trying to get in bed by 7:00. NEAL CONAN, host: I see. So you have to be at work at some ridiculous hour because of the people coming in for the early morning sales. SETH (Caller): Yeah, I work at 3:00 in the morning, and I'm one of the millions, I guess, who - you know, college graduates, to date, I've applied to 131 jobs, yet, you know, I find myself doing this, so it's kind of tough. NEAL CONAN, host: Nevertheless, you need to do what you need to do. SETH (Caller): That's right. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. You're going to get any turkey at all? SETH (Caller): We actually - my family ate at Cracker Barrel today. That way, everyone could be together at one meal at the same time to save a little bit of time and - because we usually do separate grandparents out. So we consolidated today. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Seth, drive carefully. SETH (Caller): Yeah. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And have a good day tomorrow. SETH (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And here's an email. This is from Julie. The person who won't be at our Thanksgiving table this year is our 22-year-old daughter, Kelsey. Kelsey is a Peace Corps volunteer training in Rwanda. Kelsey is a 15th generation Mayflower descendant of Pilgrim William White. Please indulge this sentimental mom her musing on Kelsey's journey. I can't help but see a few similarities to her Pilgrim ancestors. NEAL CONAN, host: She recently arrived in Rwanda, spending her first Thanksgiving with 60 other -68 other Peace Corps trainees in a different land far from home. She has found the Rwandan people welcoming, but definitely curious about the all - about all the mzungu(ph) - sure I mispronounced that - white people around them. I am so proud of these young pilgrims who are visiting a strange land new to them. I wish my daughter and her fellow Peace Corps volunteers a happy Thanksgiving and many blessings. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can go next to Cathy Lou(ph), Cathy Lou with us from Grass Valley in California. CATHY LOU (Caller): Hi. This is a great show. I just wanted to let you know there's three people that are going to be terribly missed this Thanksgiving. Clifford, Ridgewood Apartments, passed away, a decorated veteran of World War II. James O'Sea(ph), a decorated veteran of World War II. And Stanley Garceau(ph), also a decorated veteran of World War II. Theyve recently passed away in the last year, year and a half. And I just wanted everyone to know I'm sure their families are going to sorely miss them, and I, as their neighbor, friend and chauffeur really will miss them. NEAL CONAN, host: Chauffeur? You drove them around? CATHY LOU (Caller): Yeah. You know, their families live far away. And they were very -94. James used to just get into the bus and go his merry way, get those Wheels on Meals people that take him to the store. And I'd always end up at the same store and end up taking him home with his five or six bags of groceries. Very independent people, these men, very wonderful. NEAL CONAN, host: And it's sad to realize that were losing so many veterans of the Second World War every single day. CATHY LOU (Caller): They are. But the good news is that James took advantage of a program that the veterans for World War II gave, where he got to take a trip. His grandson was able to, with, I think, $200, was able to chauffeur him to Washington, D.C. and give them a tour of Washington last year, I believe it was. And I'm going to... NEAL CONAN, host: And get down to the memorial. CATHY LOU (Caller): Mm-hmm. And I'm going to miss them all sorely. I believe they're all going to be - I know Stan got a 21-gun salute. I'm sure James will. And Clifford's family was trying to get in through the VA. There were some problems with that. A problem... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we hope that works out. And, Cathy... CATHY LOU (Caller): I do, too. And I hope that their families, you know, realize what a loss it is to - I know they know - they do realize what a loss. And I just want to let them know that their lives touched mine very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you, Cathy Lou, for touching our lives. CATHY LOU (Caller): Thank you. Bye-bye. NEAL CONAN, host: Email from Carolyn and John. I know this is crazy, but our dog, Zoey(ph), will not be with us. She died three weeks ago and we're heartbroken. What will we do with the turkey she loved so much? NEAL CONAN, host: This is from Julia in Cincinnati. My mother is the person I've always most admired. She always looked forward to her Thanksgiving visit to Cincinnati. She loved our meal of turkey, with all of the fixings and white wine. She came here six years ago, returned home, and the next day passed away in her sleep. I miss her most when we sit down to eat, which we will do in a few hours. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Chris, and Chris with us from Grand Rapids. CHRIS (Caller): Hi. How is it going? NEAL CONAN, host: All right. CHRIS (Caller): I'm actually missing my brother this year. He passed away at the first of this month, and it's just sad to see him go. But I'm actually kind of thankful right now because he had a surgery when he was 16, and at that time I was about eight. So I really didn't get to know him. And, you know, the Lord blessed me with the time that he got to stay here. And, you know, I'm just thankful for all the times that I got to spend with him. So, yeah, he's not going to be at our dinner table this year. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Chris, raise a glass in his honor. CHRIS (Caller): Thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Appreciate the phone call. NEAL CONAN, host: This from Anne in Pierre, South Dakota. My - this year, my son, Andrew, who's a marine aboard USS Peleliu(ph) will not be at the table. Last year, it was both Andrew and my son, Mike, who was a marine in Afghanistan. This is the fifth year in a row that one or the other has not been home due to deployments. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can go next to Andrew, Andrew with us from Wichita. ANDREW (Caller): Hi, Neal. I am not the - I am the one who's not at my table today for Thanksgiving. NEAL CONAN, host: How come? ANDREW (Caller): I have to work. I'm an employee of one of the local television affiliates. And we have our full schedule of news programming today. So I had to come in about two hours ago, been here most of the afternoon. NEAL CONAN, host: I don't understand the story at all. ANDREW (Caller): I know. I bet you can relate. But it was a pleasant surprise. I walked in, my boss had brought in a full catered Thanksgiving dinner for everybody who had to come in to work today, so it was very nice. NEAL CONAN, host: We have a tradition here at NPR. Every year at Thanksgiving the staff of ALL THINGS CONSIDERED puts together a giant turkey dinner that they serve downstairs. Well, initially it was just for the ATC staff, but now it spread out and everybody who's working Thanksgiving is invited to participate. So I think this is a tradition in a lot of broadcast outlets, Andrew, and all those places were the only windows in the workspaces look into control rooms. ANDREW (Caller): Yes. ANDREW (Caller): Sounds familiar. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, well, at least you're not in - at least you're not at the vending machine this year. ANDREW (Caller): No lies. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, thanks very much. ANDREW (Caller): Mm-hmm. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. We're asking you to tell stories about the people who will not be at your Thanksgiving table this year, absent friends. 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And this is an email from Laura in Portland. This year, my oldest daughter, Olivia Ancona, who would have been a senior at Julliard, is now in her first year dancing with the world-renowned Batsheva Ensemble in Tel Aviv. This Thanksgiving, I am thankful my firstborn is living her dream, but wishing her dream didn't take her so far away. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to Nora. Nora with us from Nikiski. Am I getting that right, in Alaska? NORA (Caller): Yes, Nikiski, Alaska. NEAL CONAN, host: Go ahead, please. NORA (Caller): Hi, my daughter, Clarissa, is teaching in Indonesia at a little mission school. And she will not be with us for Thanksgiving, but she'll be celebrating with some other people in Indonesia. NEAL CONAN, host: In Indonesia, a sun-drenched place and, of course, here in Alaska, is it dark - how many hours is it light there at this time of the year? NORA (Caller): I think, we're around between seven and eight hours, and it's snowing right now so it's a little dreary. But well be thinking of her. NORA (Caller): And then also, my son, Joel, is in Salem, Oregon, and he will not be with the family either. So it's kind of going to be a small celebration this year. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, I'm sure it will be wonderful, nevertheless. What particularly about their absence - what do they bring to the celebration that you most going to miss? NORA (Caller): Oh, we have a lot of fun together. We play games, and they gave great stories. And the kids get along really well. And it's just kind of sad when we're not all together, so just the family, kind of, being together. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. NORA (Caller): Now, they're growing up. We don't get to see them as much. NEAL CONAN, host: You've launched them though. NORA (Caller): All right. Thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks and happy Thanksgiving. Let's see, we go next to - this is Kelly(ph). And Kelly is with us from Flagstaff, Arizona. KELLY (Caller): Hello. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. KELLY (Caller): Hi. I am not going to be at the Thanksgiving today because I'm a pet sitter. NEAL CONAN, host: A pet sitter. So somebody has left their pet and you are taking care of them. But that means you can't go to Thanksgiving? KELLY (Caller): That's correct. I do visit, so I'm going all around Flagstaff, making sure that all the pets are having a good day. NEAL CONAN, host: That's noble work. And their owners are presumably all off somewhere celebrating Thanksgiving. KELLY (Caller): Yes. NEAL CONAN, host: Do you bring the pets anything special on a holiday? KELLY (Caller): I think I will today, actually. I think I'm going to give them all a little bit of our turkey if - if I've gotten permission. NEAL CONAN, host: That's great. KELLY (Caller): Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: And are these are mostly dogs and cats? Or do you have anything unusual? KELLY (Caller): My most unusual is I'm taking care of two donkeys this time. NEAL CONAN, host: Two donkeys? KELLY (Caller): Yep. NEAL CONAN, host: Are they in advance of the Christmas, you know, pageant? KELLY (Caller): One of them might be, actually. She's actually a - what do you call it, a pack mule? NEAL CONAN, host: Uh-huh. KELLY (Caller): And her son is just a baby. He was born in July, so he's not ready yet. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, well, it'll grow into the part. KELLY (Caller): Yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for the call, Kelly. Happy Thanksgiving. Drive carefully. KELLY (Caller): Thank you. You, too, thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Let's go next to Cindy(ph), and Cindy with us from Redding in California. CINDY (Caller): Happy Thanksgiving. NEAL CONAN, host: Happy Thanksgiving to you. CINDY (Caller): I'm missing the best dog in the world. His name was Cooper. NEAL CONAN, host: And Cooper passed away this year? CINDY (Caller): He did, this summer, yes. He got a disease that took his spinal column and brain and swelled it up. And it was called GME and it's pretty rare. And it's a horrible thing to watch. And it gave me a chance to learn from my boyfriend about how to love somebody when they're sick and even unresponsive. So I'm grateful, because I think I grew a lot in my humanity. But I miss... NEAL CONAN, host: Oh, I'm sorry, Cindy. I'm sorry. CINDY (Caller): But, you know, your friends teach you how to walk through the hard stuff. And my sweetie, he's older than I am, so he's had to lose a pet. So I'm grateful to have a friend like that. So I just want to encourage people that have their pets to take lots of photos. And if you got a video camera, because it's very cheering when they - you know, they just dont live as long as us. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Cindy. Thanks very much. And we'll mourn for Cooper, too. CINDY (Caller): Happy Thanksgiving. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye. Here's an email from Dean(ph) in Sioux, Iowa. My sister, Jenny, is currently in South Korea doing service work to make people's lives there better. As tensions there grow, we miss her more and more. We'll be Skyping her into our Thanksgiving meal, 5 p.m. our time, 6 a.m. her time. NEAL CONAN, host: And this - even though I've never had Thanksgiving with my father in law, Brian Marsden, we're going to miss him this Thanksgiving. He passed away a week ago. He was a renowned astronomer, wine connoisseur, a fun grandfather, a fabulous father in law, a devoted father and an all-around jolly good Englishman. We miss him very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we Googled the Brian Marsden, the astronomer known for among other things, the person who play the key role in the demotion of Pluto to dwarf-planet status. There's something to remember. He passed away this year. NEAL CONAN, host: And we'll end with this email that we have. It's not what everyone thinks about when you had a show about missing people at the holidays. My younger brother -he turns 21 on December 1st - is spending his second Thanksgiving, Christmas in jail for doing some very stupid things. Despite his missteps, we miss him and his presence is felt as a loss for all of our family. It divides my family this holiday. NEAL CONAN, host: And as I stay home and my mom visits him in Northern New York, some people make poor choices and deal with the consequences, but it affects the family in many ways. We want him to know we love him and miss him and are supporting him the best we can. A different kind of absence, mixed with anger and sadness. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks you all for writing. I'm Neal Conan. And this is NPR News.

It's become an annual tradition on Talk of the Nation to take some time on Thanksgiving Day to remember the family and friends and neighbors who won't join us at the dinner table this year. The son or daughter who can't get away. A nephew who is serving in Afghanistan. Perhaps, the favorite aunt who passed away. Neal Conan talks with listeners about the people missing from their Thanksgiving table today, and how they remember absent family and friends.

Es ist zu einer jährlichen Tradition bei Talk of the Nation geworden, sich am Thanksgiving-Day etwas Zeit zu nehmen, um der Familie, den Freunden und Nachbarn zu gedenken, die dieses Jahr nicht mit uns am Esstisch sitzen werden. Der Sohn oder die Tochter, die nicht entkommen können. Ein Neffe, der in Afghanistan dient. Vielleicht die verstorbene Lieblingstante. Neal Conan spricht mit seinen Zuhörern über die Menschen, die heute an ihrem Thanksgiving-Tisch fehlen, und darüber, wie sie sich an die abwesenden Familienmitglieder und Freunde erinnern.

在感恩节这一天，花一些时间来纪念那些今年不和我们一起吃晚餐的家人、朋友和邻居，这已经成为《国家访谈》节目每年的传统。无法脱身的儿子或女儿。一个在阿富汗服役的侄子。也许，最爱的那位阿姨去世了。尼尔·柯南与听众谈论今天感恩节餐桌上失踪的人，以及他们如何记得缺席的家人和朋友。

NEAL CONAN, host: About a month ago, we spoke with New York Times foreign correspondent Dexter Filkins after he broke the story that top-level Taliban leaders were crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan for peace talks - some of them aboard NATO aircraft. On the front page of today's New York Times, he and his colleague, Carlotta Gall, report that the key Taliban leader in those peace talks was an impostor. NEAL CONAN, host: Dexter Filkins just got off a place from Kabul and joins us by phone from New York. Dexter, welcome home. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Hi, thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: So the insurgent leader who was a key to the progress of those talks, in fact, his presence was a measure of progress of those talks wasn't who he said he was. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): No. I mean, it's one of those stories where you don't really know whether to cry or to laugh. NEAL CONAN, host: Who was he supposed to be? Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, he was supposed to be - and everyone thought he was a guy named Mullah Akhtar Mansour, who if he really had been that person or whoever he is, is the pretty much the number two commander in the Taliban, just below Mullah Omar. And so - the trouble really, and this goes to the heart of the story is that, you know, these Taliban guys are these kinds of barely literate clerics that are from these tiny villages in the countryside in Afghanistan, no one's really seen them for years. And they, you know, they're living and hiding in Pakistan. Nobody really knows what they look like. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): I mean, if you think about, you know, you just say Mullah Omar, what's the image that comes to mind? I mean, there's only a couple of really grainy black-and-white photos of him. And, you know, God knows what Mullah Mansour looks like. And so that's kind of what happened here. This guy presented himself. I think it was arranged through a middleman as the number two guy in the Taliban, and through, I think, pretty painstaking efforts they - after three meetings, they determined that this guy was basically a nobody. NEAL CONAN, host: And you say, though, they did make efforts to discover, if he was who said he was, among other things, showed his picture to detainees who said they knew this guy. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): That's right. That's right. But remember, I mean, it's been a long time, and so I think what was decisive in this case, was they brought somebody in to one of the meetings who - or he looked at a photo of somebody who actually knew this guy. I mean, he hadn't seen him for a long time, but he took one look at the photo apparently and said that's not him. NEAL CONAN, host: In the meantime, he had made some, well, according to what your story said, his presence at the talks and his position as representing the Taliban seemed to represent a lot of progress. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, I - it did. I mean, I think people - you know, I have to be careful because I think, you know, from the beginning the Americans and the Afghan government, they weren't, you know, they were skeptical, appropriately so. I mean, they wanted to... NEAL CONAN, host: General Petraeus said today he was not surprised by this. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, that's probably - that's putting a nice touch on it, but I think, you know, they, look, I mean, the - only about a month ago, General Petraeus and others were talking publicly about these discussions and remarking that they appear to be promising. And I - so, you know, it took a while to establish that this guy was not who said he was and, you know, I guess, it's a good thing, you know, it makes you wonder like how long could this have gone on before something would have happened, you know? Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): But the talks, you know, as they were, the talks apparently were, like, going pretty well. I mean, the guy said - you know, the Taliban said, look, you know, all we want is, you know, we want jobs for our fighters and we want, you know, a guarantee of safety or safe return for the commanders, the release of prisoners, all, you know, reasonable stuff that you would kind of expect to hear from them. NEAL CONAN, host: And not every foreigner must leave the country and not we want a piece of the government. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Yeah, exactly. Exactly. NEAL CONAN, host: And... Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): We were like, wow, you know? NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah. And it seems reasonable, particularly when he was getting, apparently, a fair amount of money from the United States. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): He oh, he was. I don't know how much exactly, but the person I spoke to well, I'll say, a Western diplomat said, yeah, we gave him a lot of money. And that was kind of, hey, you know, nice to meet you. And we really hope you come back, so here, take this. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. So was he a con artist with nerves of steel and had a very interesting routine? Was he, as some speculate, a messenger from the Taliban? Was he a plant by the Pakistani intelligence services? Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, I think all of those things are possible. I mean, this is a part of the world where nothing is as it seems. I mean, everything is kind of a 3-D chess game, you know, in the dark, so all those things are possible. I mean, to me, there I should say, there's no evidence that this guy is anything but a fraud, you know. There isn't any evidence that the Taliban sort of sent him up and said, just tell them you're Mullah Mansour and then see what they offer. There isn't any evidence of that. So maybe, it's true, but who knows. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): And the same with you know, there are some people speculating that maybe the Pakistani intelligence services, which are very close to the Taliban, maybe they sent him up just to kind of get a handle on things as, you know, the Pakistani intelligence services are always meddling in these sort of things. And they are very close to the Taliban so but the thing is that, at this point, that's just kind of you know, it's just speculation. There just isn't so it just looks like, you know, this guy was just sort of following the money, you know. And he just looks like kind of a freelance phony. NEAL CONAN, host: And this discovery apparently made while he was conveniently out of Afghanistan, so I suspect he's not going to be coming back anytime soon. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, yeah. I think my understanding is, you know - there were three meetings. There were two in Kandahar, there was one in Kabul. He met President Karzai. My understanding is that it happened kind of at the third meeting, and that's when he was discovered. And my understanding is, though, is that he was not confronted by this. And I think - to be fair, I mean, I think there are some people I spoke to them. There are some people in the Afghan government who say, look. Maybe, you know, maybe we're wrong about his identity. But maybe we're even wrong about being wrong about his identity. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Maybe he is still Mullah Mansour, and maybe he'll come back. So there were actually people that are kind of hoping for that. So they didn't want to confront him and say, hey, we think you're a fake, because then he would have, you know, taken off and run into the hills and they'd never see him again. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): So, again, I mean, this is how hard this part of the world is. You know, we don't know that much. Everything is wreathed in shadows and ambiguity. And we're trying to make our way through this. You know, this is the 10th year we've been at war there. NEAL CONAN, host: The New York Times knew this man's name and was asked not to report it and did not, among with the names of two others people said to be participating in the talks. Their lives were thought to be at risk if their names were published. Might The New York Times reconsider such a policy? Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, look, I mean, if, you know, we the White House came to us or I think we went to them and said, look, we've discovered what appears to be these significant talks that are going on that you're facilitating. And they came back to us and asked us not to publish this guy's name. And the case was basically, look, you know, if he's real and if he's if it really is Mullah Mansour, then he's taken a terrible risk to do this. And if you publish his name, he's going to be killed, right? That makes a lot of sense. And, you know, we're mindful of that and at the Times. And we try to be, you know, we try to be in this case, we try to be responsible. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): And so based on their based on the White House request and I think that was a measure of how sure the White House was or how sure they felt at that time, you know they - we got this pretty promising thing going. Please, don't scuttle it. So, we're you know, we're not trying to scuttle peace talks to end this war, that's for sure. But, you know, it's a you know I mean, we weren't going to withhold it anymore, certainly, after learning what we did. We decided to publish the name. NEAL CONAN, host: Dexter Filkins of the New York Times. We have a caller on the line from New York City, perhaps one of his readers. Sam(ph) is with us. SAM (Caller): Yes. Greetings. I just I had a question. As far as I recall, the Taliban has been - all along - been saying that they were not involved in those peace talks and at no point did that alert the U.S. government or intelligence agency to investigate that. I just wanted to know why they ignored them for the entire peace talk time that they were just ignored. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, I think - you know, look, there's a kind of there's a public world and there's a private world here, and they're very they're often very, very different. And so, in this case I mean, the Taliban, for years, have been saying, you know, no discussions, no talks, you know. We're going to drive the foreigners out. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): And on many occasions, they have engaged in discussions and talks as early I mean, as recently as January, the number two the then number two in the Taliban, Abdul Ghani Baradar, was absolutely engaged in talking to the Afghan government. He was arrested in Pakistan and taken into custody for reasons that are kind of unclear. But the point being, just because the Taliban say they're not talking doesn't mean they're not talking. NEAL CONAN, host: Sam, thanks very much for the call. SAM (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Good question. There is another point, which is where are we now? You quote in your story Sayed Amir Muhammad Agha, a one-time Taliban commander, who said he has left the Taliban but acted as a go-between with the government in the past. He said he didn't know the tale of the impostor. But he said the Taliban leadership had given no indications of a willingness to enter talks. Someone like me could come forward and say, I am a Talib and a powerful person. But I can tell you, nothing is going on. Whenever I talk to the Taliban, they never accept peace. They want to keep on fighting. They're not tired. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, I think Tayyab Agha is a pretty good example of what I was just talking about. I mean, Tayyab Agha, if you ask me, I mean, he may say he's no longer involved in the Taliban - I think he is. He may say that he's never involved himself in negotiations - he has. And so, again, it's really hard work in this part of the world because, you know, you very rarely get people coming out and telling you what's really going on. That's why it's hard. NEAL CONAN, host: And so there were others, obviously not as senior, in these talks. Was there any progress made? Was this just a - did this just blow up into nothing? Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, they made - I think they made a lot of progress, but I think the - I mean, the talks as they were themselves, the discussions were pretty fruitful. But I think the problem is they weren't talking to anybody that mattered. And that's, you know - look, this isn't the first time it's happened... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): ...in a war like this. I mean, in war, everything is confusing. I mean, you know, the phrase, the fog of war, I mean, everything is foggy. And so some guy comes forward and says, look, I can help you make a deal. Everybody wants to end this war, why not try? So in that sense, you know, it's not all that surprising - unfortunate, but not all that surprising. NEAL CONAN, host: Dexter Filkins, thank you very much for your time today. Welcome home. Mr. DEXTER FILKINS (Foreign Correspondent, The New York Times): Thank you, sir. NEAL CONAN, host: Dexter Filkins, a New York Times foreign correspondent. He co-wrote a story with Carlotta Gall for today's front page. We've posted a link to that story at npr.org, just click on TALK OF THE NATION. Just got off a plane from Kabul, we appreciate him stopping to pause to speak with us there from New York. NEAL CONAN, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

In October, New York Times foreign correspondent Dexter Filkins broke the news that top-level Taliban leaders were crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan for peace talks. Today, Filkins reports that the key Taliban leader in those secret talks was an impostor.

Im Oktober berichtete der Auslandskorrespondent der New York Times, Dexter Filkins, dass hochrangige Taliban-Führer zu Friedensgesprächen von Pakistan nach Afghanistan übersetzten. Heute berichtet Filkins, dass der wichtigste Anführer der Taliban in diesen Geheimgesprächen ein Hochstapler war.

10月，《纽约时报》驻外记者德克斯特·费尔金斯爆料称，塔利班高层领导人正从巴基斯坦过境前往阿富汗进行和谈。今天，费尔金斯报告说，这些秘密会谈中，塔利班主要领导人是一个冒名顶替者。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. As the regular college football season winds down, four teams boast undefeated records: Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Boise State. Only two, though, can go the national championship game. So the debate starts anew. As the regular college football season winds down, four teams boast undefeated records: Is it time to dump the BCS and institute a playoff? And the old argument takes on a new edge. At a time when many colleges and universities face cutbacks, playoffs could generate tremendous profits. The commission claims its system is fine just the way it is. Every regular season game becomes important: You lose, you're out. And it preserves the bowl games. As the regular college football season winds down, four teams boast undefeated records: Later in the program, an argument to restart relations with North Korea. But first, is it time for a playoff in Division 1A College Football? Our phone number, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Thats at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. As the regular college football season winds down, four teams boast undefeated records: NPR sports correspondent Tom Goldman joins us from his home in Portland. And Tom, always nice to have you with us. TOM GOLDMAN: Hi, Neal, how are you? NEAL CONAN, host: I'm well. And we have to begin by pointing out the regular season ain't over yet. TOM GOLDMAN: It ain't over yet. That is true. And we are heading toward a big Friday, some are calling it Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, when you've got three of those schools that you mentioned Oregon, Auburn, Boise State all in action. TCU, which is currently third in the BCS rankings, plays on Saturday. TOM GOLDMAN: But Friday could be a really big day because Auburn has a very tough matchup against Alabama in the Southeastern conference. Oregon plays Arizona. And Boise State has a tough game against help me now? NEAL CONAN, host: Nevada, I think. TOM GOLDMAN: Nevada, number 19, Nevada. So depending on what happens there, what happens with those games could go a long way toward letting us know who is going to be in that big, mythical one-versus-two game in Glendale, Arizona. NEAL CONAN, host: And remind us: The BCS was itself started as an answer to this conundrum. TOM GOLDMAN: It was started as an answer to a conundrum, but of course, you find something to answer a conundrum and in some people's minds, it creates another conundrum. TOM GOLDMAN: It began in 1998, and it was a way to showcase, by BCS standards, Bowl Championship Series standards, the top two schools each year. Now, it has worked, if you, you know, listen to what the BCS people say, because the last 12 years, you have had the one and two teams by BCS measurements - and of course some people, many people question whether those measurements are the way to go - you've had those teams meet for the national championship games. TOM GOLDMAN: And so, you know, as you'll find out later talking to Bill Hancock from the BCS that this is the way to go. As you mentioned, it's you know, it pits the top two teams against the others. You have four other BCS bowl games that theoretically pit the top teams against each other. And as you also mentioned, it creates great interest and excitement in the regular season because, as I mentioned with Friday coming up, you know, you have this situation where you lose and you're out of the running, certainly with four undefeated teams right now up at the top. TOM GOLDMAN: So it puts that much more there's that much more impact of a regular season game. And BCS proponents say that you would lose that if you went to a playoff. NEAL CONAN, host: Yet there's going to be tremendous let's say that Alabama beats Auburn, which is I guess, at least in terms of most prognosticators, the most likely of the possible upsets. Of course anything can happen but if it does, you're going to have a lot of people arguing that then one-loss Alabama should be considered to be one of the top two teams in the country, as opposed to Boise State or TCU, who play a much easier schedule. TOM GOLDMAN: Well, certainly, and the Southeastern Conference is considered if not the top, one of the top power conferences in the country. And there will be those arguments. But the defenders of TCU and Boise State will say: Sorry, you know, we're still undefeated. We've run the table and one of us, at least, deserves to be in there. NEAL CONAN, host: And this is they are not from BCS conferences. There are some conferences that automatically qualify. TOM GOLDMAN: Right. The teams from the top, from the six BCS conferences, the major conferences, including the PAC 10, Southeastern Conference, Big 12, two or three others, six of those conferences are automatic qualifiers. And Boise State and TCU, being from the Western Athletic Conference and the Mountain West Conference, respectively, those are non-automatic qualifiers. TOM GOLDMAN: And only one of those can only one of those teams from those conferences, the non-automatic qualifiers, can get an automatic bid. So that's why, as we look at these top four teams, actually the fight between Boise State and TCU is such a big one at this point because the team that ends up third will get that automatic bid, probably, and the other one, even though they may have an undefeated record, they would have to go in as an at-large team because only one team from those non-automatic qualifiers can get into a BCS bowl game. Are you following this, Neal? NEAL CONAN, host: I am following this. But on the other hand, I've been indoctrinated for many years. So I think I've figured it out. TOM GOLDMAN: So that's why the fight between TCU and Boise State and they are separated now by .0135 points according to the computers, is so key because, you know, Boise State can leapfrog TCU and get to three. That would mean Boise State would get an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, not necessarily the national championship bowl. TCU, being number four then, could get left out. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah, they could go to the Muffler Bowl somewhere. TOM GOLDMAN: Meineke car care or whatever. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can get some callers in on the conversation, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Is it time for a playoff? Toby's(ph) on the line, calling from Huntington in West Virginia. TOBY (Caller): I think the bowl system now should be scrapped, but the bowl venues should be retained as playoff locations. The other divisions Division 2, Division 3 do college playoffs in football, and that manages very well. TOBY (Caller): It would be difficult for teams to travel long distances, but they have to do that for the mythical national championship game anyways. People like to watch them on TV. So I think it is time for a true championship playoff, and that's what I would vote for. NEAL CONAN, host: And how many teams would you put in, Toby? TOBY (Caller): I would put in 32. NEAL CONAN, host: Wow. TOBY (Caller): I think beyond well, you could do a 64. You could do 128. What is there, 139 teams? They could all get a playoff, kind of like NBA basketball. NEAL CONAN, host: It would take a long time. You can't play twice a week in football. Anyway, thats very interesting. But Tom Goldman, clearly the BCS, as it stands now, one of the things in its favor is that it does fit it did fit across the template of the old bowl games, the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl and games like that, so that they could be the BCS games and the championship game, I guess, what, rotates among four of the big bowls every year. TOM GOLDMAN: Right, yeah. And I think Toby raises an interesting point, though, is that, you know, playoff proponents say look, you can still keep your bowl games. And I'm not sure how the formula's going to work. But you can keep the bowl games, and we will kind of fold those into a playoff system. But you will have a playoff system, and you won't have the questions that you have. You will have it proved on the field rather than through two polls and six computer rankings, which currently make up the BCS process. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Tom Goldman, thanks very much, and we appreciate your time. NPR sports correspondent Tom Goldman joined us from his home in Portland, Oregon, where he's completely neutral in all of this and has no feeling toward the Oregon Ducks whatsoever. NEAL CONAN, host: Tom, always nice to have you on the program today. TOM GOLDMAN: It's a pleasure, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: As he mentioned, we're going to hear later in the program from Bill Hancock, who is executive director of the Bowl Championship Series. But joining us now from member station WDET in Detroit is Dan Wetzel, a writer for Yahoo Sports and author of "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series." Nice to have you with us today. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Thanks for (technical difficulties). NEAL CONAN, host: And clearly from the title of your book, not a fan of the BCS. Why is a playoff superior? Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Yeah, (technical difficulties) three books. So don't give away our (technical difficulties) there at the end. They've got to keep (technical difficulties). Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): You know, it's quite simple. You want to (technical difficulties). Every form of competition has a better system than (technical difficulties). What we have is a... NEAL CONAN, host: Excuse me, Dan, we're having some technical problems with the situation with your line. You're cutting in and out. Tom, are you still there? TOM GOLDMAN: Still here, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, we're going to get the line fixed up so Dan, we can... TOM GOLDMAN: We'll get Dan on the phone. NEAL CONAN, host: We'll get Dan on the phone, or somehow we'll get a better system. But in the meantime, you're still there. And I guess the you know, some of the scenario problems that you have with the BCS system is somebody's always going to feel excluded. And, of course, if you have a 16-game playoff, team playoff, number 17, 18 and 19 are going to feel like they got jobbed. But it's another thing to say: Wait, I was number three. How come I don't get a shot at it? TOM GOLDMAN: Yeah, it is, and yes, someone will always complain. But you'll have fewer people complaining, I suppose, if you go to a playoff system. That's what proponents say, because, you know, giving 12 or however many teams an even shot, you know, will end a lot of these arguments. NEAL CONAN, host: And the situation also that does come into it, would it be accurate to say and I think we're going to hear Dan Wetzel claim this that everybody says a playoff system would generate a lot more money than the system as it exists today. TOM GOLDMAN: Well, yeah, and I will let Dan take that one. But he, interesting, in his recent article that he co-wrote with Austin Murphy(ph) for Sports Illustrated, and he probably repeats this in the book, which I haven't read yet, I apologize. But he said that Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany, he quoted him in this article speaking to Congress in 2005 and Delaney is apparently a playoff proponent - and I'm quoting here: An NFL-style football playoff would generate three or four times more than the current system does. TOM GOLDMAN: And according to Dan and Austin Murphy, that could mean an estimated 700 million to 800 million annually to be distributed among the 1A conferences. That's a whopping bit of money. And so, you know, one of the big points that Dan Wetzel has been making is that, yes, the current BCS system, according to BCS proponents, is lucrative for certain entities and people, but they're leaving a lot of money on the table, Dan Wetzel will tell you. NEAL CONAN, host: And we'll hopefully, he'll be able to tell us that when we come back from a short break. We'll have this worked out. And Tom Goldman, in appreciation for your willingness to step in for a few additional minutes, we will say: Go Ducks. NEAL CONAN, host: NPR sports correspondent Tom Goldman, with us from his home in Portland. When we come back, again we'll have Dan Wetzel, co-wrote an article for Sports Illustration called "Does It Matter" and co-author of "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case against the Bowl Championship Series. We'll also have Bill Hancock on, who's executive director of the Bowl Championship Series and more of your calls. NEAL CONAN, host: Is it time for a playoff? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan, TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking about: Is it time for a playoff series in Division 1 College Football? Dan Wetzel is our guest. He wrote in the November 15th of Sports Illustrated: Big-time college football is a world-class beauty with a wart on her forehead. That blemish is the sport's method for determining a national champion. NEAL CONAN, host: The NCAA crowns 88 champions in 23 sports. The only champion it does not crown is in Division 1A Football, which in its wisdom has delegated the task of determining which two teams will contend for its title to a series of mathematically unsound computer formulas and often confused and ill-informed poll voters. NEAL CONAN, host: He's against it. 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Is it time for a playoff series? You can also go join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: And Dan, I think we have you on the phone now. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): I am back, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: And you were trying to say before, the best way, clearly, to answer this is to settle this matter on the field. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Yeah, absolutely. You know, when you interview players and talk to them and poll them, they want to settle it on the field. They want a playoff. You talk to coaches, they want something better than this. They want to have some form of a playoff. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): The BCS is better than the old system, but it's out of date. It's arbitrary. It's illogical. You have poll voters that often don't pay attention and vote with biases and very confused poll voting through the years, we show in the book. You have mathematical you have computers that quantitative analysts are boycotting because they say they're not mathematically sound. They don't actually adhere to math or science. They are simply PR tools to try to create the illusion of an unbiased part of the system. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): It's confusing to the fans, who want it, who simply they both want the opportunity for their teams to play in meaningful games, compete for the title, and just the excitement that a playoff generates, the way the NFL or NBA playoffs do every year. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): And as we show, the TV ratings for the regular season would improve. The interest in the regular season would improve. It's a win-win all over, before you ever start counting the money. And realizing that what the reason this is being blocked is because a small group of private businessmen and outside interests, mostly the bowl directors, have been able to entrench their way and create a system where college football outsources its most profitable product. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): They're making a great deal of money on it, and they want to block any kind of change forward that the players, the coaches or the fans are looking for. NEAL CONAN, host: Didn't they aren't they, at least in some large measure, responsible for popularizing this game for the last 70 years? Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Well, I think maybe some of the bowl games did, but I'm not so sure that the Roadies Truckstop Humanitarian Bowl has had a whole lot to do with that. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): But the simple fact is the people that run the NFL playoffs or the NFL, the people that run college football's post-season are not the colleges. And when you're allowing a third party to come in on your most profitable product and cut 50, 60 percent of the revenue right away, stick schools with incredible travel expenses, ticket guarantees and different things, it just does no longer make sense. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): College football, college athletics and colleges in general can't really afford what's really a bad business deal, what conference commissioners admit are bad business deals. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): You have student fees to the tune of $800 million in Division 1A, trying to balance college athletics. Only 14 schools turned a profit on college sports last year, teams getting cut at major universities like Cal Berkeley, you know, $9 million in student fees at the University of Virginia for athletics, so much money that's going off to a small group of people that are kind of blocking this thing. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): And make no mistake, that's why it's being blocked. This is all about money. College football is a huge business, and people are trying to protect their role in this business. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can get Cameron(ph) on the line, Cameron with us from Tallahassee. CAMERON (Caller): Yes, hey. How are you doing, gentlemen? I don't believe they need to go to the playoff system yet. I think what they could start is by extending the season by maybe one or two games and then getting every team that's in the BCS division into a conference, and then every conference having a two division where you play a championship like the FCC and the ACCIDENT and so on, Big 12. That way, you can eliminate the (unintelligible) in the rank. If they can't win their conference championship, then they're eliminated out of the national championship running. CAMERON (Caller): But also, you can... NEAL CONAN, host: Why don't we give Dan Wetzel a chance to respond to that. There I think the only team left out of a conference now is Notre Dame, but Cameron's point, if you get bigger conferences, and they have conference playoffs, isn't that in effect the same thing? Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Yeah, it's kind of the same thing. I mean, I think what -you know, this is the thing. I mean, whether you go to, I think the guy earlier said, 32 teams, or 16 or 12 or eight, all of these plans are better than what we have. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): What he's basically arguing is almost the same thing as anyone else is arguing. It's settle it on the field. You know, enough with the computers. Enough with the polls. Stop with the mythical championships. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): This is very easy for them to sit down and design a workable playoff that would improve the regular season, increase revenue to colleges and universities, regain control - have the NCA regain control of college football and cut out the people that are you know, and allow the bowl games can operate on their own. They have no inalienable right to block progress and take the majority of the profits, of the revenue, of college football. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): There's - no other business would ever do this. No other sport would ever adhere to this. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email we have from Larry(ph) in Wichita, who says: No, colleges and universities are supposed to be institutions of higher education. Players already miss too much school. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): That ship sailed a long time ago. The last thing they care about is academics. But you can play you play football on Saturdays for the most part. They don't miss a lot of school. And you can conduct an entire playoff during Christmas break. It wouldn't infringe on academics at any point. Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): His overall point is well taken. However, that's a whole other show, on whether they should even have these kind of levels or whether players should get paid and things like this. But in this term, a playoff would have no impact on the academics. Even, you know, Jim Delany of the Big 10 will admit that. The conference commissioners and presidents will admit: Yeah, you're right. It doesn't have any effect on academics. NEAL CONAN, host: Dan Wetzel, thanks very much for your time today. We apologize for the technical difficulties earlier, but... Mr. DAN WETZEL (Co-author, "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series"): Thanks for having me on. NEAL CONAN, host: Dan Wetzel writes for Yahoo Sports, and he's co-author of "Death To The BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series." His article, "Does it Matter," runs in the November 15th edition of Sports Illustrated. You can find a link to that at our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Our thanks, as well, to WDET in Detroit. NEAL CONAN, host: With us now by phone from Prairie Village, Kansas, is Bill Hancock, executive director of the Bowl Championship Series, and it's good to have you with us today. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): Hey, Neal. It's great to be on. I love NPR, and it really is an honor to be on the air with you. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, thanks very much. It's kind of you to say. Is it time to stop a system that enriches only a few people and institute a playoff system that would enrich the colleges and the universities? Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): No, it's not time for that yet, Neal. We have the greatest regular season in sports, and to change that would just be a crime. We need to keep what we have. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Andrew(ph), who I think summarizes a lot of people's points: BCS serves the BCS and the sponsors of the bowl games only, not the tradition of the sport. High school football and the pros both have playoffs. Why not D1 College? A playoff is better for the players, the game and the fans. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): You know, we get those arguments. I love talking to people about this. But again, preserve this regular season and also preserve the bowl system that is a reward for the athletes at the end of the season. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): They get a five- or six-day experience in a different culture, and if you went to a playoff, we'd have one-day business trips. And which do you think would be better for the students, five or six days or a one-night business trip? NEAL CONAN, host: Well, you could make those as different as you'd be interested in, particularly if you imposed the playoff system on the current bowl structure, played them at the same ballparks. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): The bowl system would be changed if it became a playoff. The emphasis would go more away from that five or six days in a different culture to the actual game itself. And I don't know whether neutral and even Dan, my friend Dan Wetzel, doesn't advocate playing the playoff at the bowl sites. And I don't know whether an Alabama-Pittsburgh game in Pasadena would draw a whole lot of fans. NEAL CONAN, host: The playoff systems in professional sports do well. The playoff systems in other divisions of college football seem to do pretty well. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): They do pretty well. What they don't have is a bowl system. And college football grew up with a bowl system. The other divisions of the NCAA, they do have playoffs, but I've talked to several coaches who have coached in those games that say: Whatever you do, don't go the route of the playoff because our athletes didn't like it. These are people who coached in Division 1AA and 2 and 3. Our athletes didn't like it. Our fans didn't like it. We didn't even draw particularly well with home. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): So those playoffs are not really the panacea that some people make them out to be. NEAL CONAN, host: Would you accept the argument that Dan and others make that a bowl system, a playoff system rather, would generate significantly more money, and that money at a time when so many colleges and universities are facing cutbacks is - would be very welcome. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): No one knows for sure about, although I do think Dan's right. I think there would be some more money from a playoff. But some money would go from the regular season into a playoff, which would just go from one bucket to the other. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): But it's interesting that Dan and the other authors are so fixated on the money, and what we are, we're fixated on what's best for the student athletes. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, money would be good the student athletes if the school did not have to cut out French or if they had lacrosse available, too, as well as football. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): I don't know that schools are making those draconian cuts as result of what's happening in football. And, you know, also, football drives so much of the revenue for the university as it is now. And is it right to do - to change the system to hurt the student athletes? I think that's the central question. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we get some callers in on the conversation. Jim is with us, calling from Tuscaloosa. JIM (Caller): I'm an Auburn man in Tuscaloosa with a degree from the University of Alabama System. But - and here in this state, we had last years BSC champion, Alabama, and last years Heisman Trophy winner. This year, Auburn's a contender for the national championship and the number one Heisman Trophy candidate, so we know football here. JIM (Caller): And one thing I know, it is all about money, money and money. And then you got to try and get a bunch of university presidents to agree on a solution. And that's why I think the BCS has been unsatisfactory. It's still viewed by a lot of the fans as an unfair system. Under the old bowl system, sometimes an inferior team might get selected to a major bowl because they brought more money, brought more - a larger fan base, (technical difficulty). NEAL CONAN, host: They travel well, as they use to say. Yes. JIM (Caller): Yeah. And what I'm seeing now is - to me, it's unfair to even have (unintelligible) I don't think there's any way, almost no way Boise State will be permitted to play in this championship game because a team like Alabama or Auburn probably sells more licensed team merchandise in a weekend than Boise State does in three weeks or a month. And... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Bill Hancock, I know you can't see into the future. But if they're ranked one or two at the end of this season, would Boise State or TCU be invited to the championship game? Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): Oh, my goodness, absolutely, without a doubt. And that's certainly within the realm of possibility. As Tom Goldman said before, there's a lot more ball to be played, but without a doubt. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Bob in Waterford, Michigan. The answer is so simple to implement a college playoff system - the structure is already there - you don't need to violate the sacred bowls. Just make the BSC bowls on New Year's Day as the first round. Play two more weeks and you have a true national championship from the top eight teams. Have the championship game to kick off Super Bowl week maybe in the same site. Bingo. BCS bowls still exist. The other bowls can go onto a post-season honor, no less meaningful than they are today. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): We hear that a lot. And the commissioners actually talked about that three years ago in great detail. But they came down to the fact that, you know what, it would be so difficult to select the four teams or however many the caller wants... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. I think he's calling for eight. Yeah. But... Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): You'd be trading one set of problems for an equal set of problems. Number three, as you mentioned before, Neal, at number three, would be - is unhappy now, but number - team number nine is going to be unhappy then. But that received a lot of discussion, and who knows, it may again someday. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, in the basketball playoff, team number 66 feels slighted, which may not have had a real opportunity to win the championship. But nevertheless, yeah, there's always going to be controversy over any system that limits people. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking about the idea of instituting playoffs in Division 1-A football. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's go next to Keenan(ph), Keenan with us from East Lansing. KEENAN (Caller): Hi, how's it going? NEAL CONAN, host: Go ahead. KEENAN (Caller): I just wanted to say that I think the change that we could make right now is to make the regular season actually harder. Right now, we, you know, most teams have four non-conference games. And my Michigan State Spartans, we played Northern Colorado this year, and - just to get an automatic win. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. KEENAN (Caller): So I think what we need to do is theres about two-thirds of the teams that are in BCS automatic AQ conferences, one-third not. Every team should play the team, their non-conference rival, and then two games against automatic qualifying BCS schools and then one team not. And so then it would kind of level the playing field so that everyone would have at least a somewhat equal non-conference schedule. And so you can look at those games more when deciding to go bowl games. NEAL CONAN, host: Keenan, there's a lot of financial consideration involved in all of that, and that's one of the things. Scheduling those non-conference games is one of - well, Bill Hancock, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a very careful financial decision often? Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): It is, Neal. Playing games at home is important to some institutions - to many institutions. But the caller has a good point about scheduling. And I would just say that it's - every institution schedules differently. Some have young teams, they want to play a little softer schedule. Some are stronger, they're willing to go anywhere to play. You get all kinds of answers about that. And one thing I think we're seeing from the callers today that I just love is the passion... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): ...for the game and the knowledge of people have and how much they love it. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks, Keenan. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Rick, and Rick's with us from San Francisco. RICK (Caller): Neal, thanks. Longtime listener, first-time caller. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, thanks for that. RICK (Caller): I can't think of anything that is more wrong with football in college than the BCS. The only thing that would be more wrong with it is playoff. I think just the point of college football, what it should be about. And I think it really appeals towards the lowest common denominator of casual fan who needs to be, in the most unsophisticated fashion possible, spoon fed the idea of a champion. RICK (Caller): You know, every game is a championship game throughout the season. And you know, the winner of the Michigan-Ohio State game is the champion of that game. And the goal of those teams should be to get to that traditional bowl venue, and, you know, of course, in the case of the Big 10 or the Pac 10, it's the Rose Bowl. RICK (Caller): Putting a playoff together, to me, would just cheapen college football to a point where the regular season and any bowl games that were left in the smoldering aftermath of a playoff system would be unwatchable to everybody but the, you know, the most die-hard fan. RICK (Caller): The biggest problem right now, I think, there are, what, 40 ballgames practically? That means 80 out of a 120 division 1-A teams or FBS teams go to bowl games. Cut the number of bowl games in half, I think that's the solution. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Thanks very much for the call, Rick. Appreciate it. And Bill Hancock, I think you would agree with much of what he said, though perhaps not the first part. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Marvin in Wichita. I'm going to tell it like it is. College football as it stands now is a farce, not a sport at all. It's a moneymaking, delusion-making collusion of corruption. There's no sport where two teams trade scores without a playoff. There's no sport where something is decided by biased voters or biased-driven algorithms. Team get better sometimes by losing a game or two. And during the '80s and '90s, Florida State often was playing for better than the - far better than the teams voted to play in the phony championship. We'll never have college football champion in what we call reality without a playoff. And - well... Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): No. NEAL CONAN, host: ...give you the last 30 seconds to reply. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): We saw the alpha to the omega with those last two calls, didn't we? NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): The fact is what we have is a civilized system. It's not biased. It's fair. Everybody benefits from it in terms of finances and also access. And it's voluntary. Every conference can opt out if it doesn't like what we're doing. But to this point, they've all opted in. NEAL CONAN, host: Bill Hancock, thank you so much for your time today. We appreciate it. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): Thank you, Neal. It's been good fun. NEAL CONAN, host: And I'm sure it'll be a controversy-free next few weeks. Mr. BILL HANCOCK (Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series): We can't wait. NEAL CONAN, host: Bill Hancock, executive director of the Bowl Championship Series, with us from Prairie Village in Kansas.

The BCS — the current system of bowl games — uses computer formulas and polling to pick the top teams in college football. The bowl commission argues that the current setup makes every game important. But many sports fans argue it's time for playoffs in college football. Tom Goldman, sports correspondent, NPR Dan Wetzel, co-author of Death To The BCS Bill Hancock, executive director, Bowl Championship Series

Das BCS – das aktuelle System der Bowl-Spiele – verwendet Computerformeln und Umfragen, um die besten Teams im College-Football auszuwählen. Die Bowl-Kommission argumentiert, dass das aktuelle Setup jedes Spiel wichtig macht. Aber viele Sportfans argumentieren, dass es Zeit für Playoffs im College-Football ist. Tom Goldman, Sportkorrespondent, NPR Dan Wetzel, Co-Autor von Death To The BCS Bill Hancock, Executive Director, Bowl Championship Series

“碗锦标赛系列”目前使用碗式比赛系统，通过计算机公式和投票挑选大学顶级足球队。碗委员会认为，根据目前设置，每场比赛都很重要。但许多体育迷认为，大学足球该进入季后赛了。汤姆·戈德曼，《碗锦标赛系列之亡》一书合著者；“碗锦标赛系列”执行董事比尔·汉考克

DAVID GREENE, HOST: First lady Melania Trump has kept a relatively low profile during her time in the White House so far. But earlier this month, she spoke about a campaign against cyberbullying. She also announced plans to go to Africa. So we thought we would take this moment to learn more about the Slovenian-born Melania Trump. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And we turned to White House historian Kate Andersen Brower. She's author of the book "First Women: The Grace And Power Of America's First Ladies." And she spoke to our co-host Noel King. NOEL KING, BYLINE: I want to talk about Melania Trump's public campaign as a first lady. She chose cyberbullying as her focus despite the fact that her husband, President Trump, regularly bullies people on Twitter. Do you think the first lady made a deliberate move in her choice? KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: I do. I think that she is really telegraphing to her husband that he needs to tone it down. I know that she has asked him to stop tweeting or at least to be less confrontational in his tweets. It is something she cares deeply about. And I think we see a trend with her of again and again doing things that you can see as undermining her husband. NOEL KING, BYLINE: You've got a couple of examples that you cite. Tell me about some of the things you've been thinking about. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: Well, I mean, the State of the Union, when she wore the white pantsuit, which is an example to me that was striking. You know, Hillary Clinton famously wore pantsuits. White pantsuits are examples of suffragists historically. And you saw her recently just this month with LeBron James - when the president came out and attacked him on Twitter, she came out and said she would be happy to go visit the school that he's starting up in Akron, Ohio. NOEL KING, BYLINE: I remember Mrs. Trump getting on a plane with a jacket that said, I don't care; do you? And the way that many people read that was that Melania Trump, even though she's on her way to the border, is sort of thumbing her nose at people who are critical of her husband's policy. Who do you think that message was addressed to? KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: Obviously a $40 jacket from Zara is something that was not in her typical wardrobe. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Yep. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: So it was on purpose. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Yeah. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: I think it was a message to the media. I mean, the president said it in a tweet that this is what she's going to do. She doesn't care who criticizes her on either side. I think that trip was such an important moment for her. And it really was a shame that it was overshadowed by her decision to wear that jacket. NOEL KING, BYLINE: What makes Melania Trump different from previous first ladies? KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: Well, I think the landscape has changed so much now that we know everything. In the Kennedy White House, reporters had this kind of gentleman's agreement with the president that they would not go out and report on what was an open secret, that he was cheating on Jackie. Now everything is out there. Stormy Daniels is really humiliating for Melania as it would be for anyone. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: And I think that that might be one reason why we're seeing her kind of really go out on her own and carve out her own path in a way that no other first lady has done. I mean, not moving to the White House right away is a great example. Michelle Obama and Laura Bush would've probably loved to have not moved into the White House. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Yeah. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: And so in the same way that President Trump is unprecedented in so many ways, Melania Trump is an unprecedented first lady. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Have any of the former first ladies reached out to Melania Trump and said, call me if you need anything? KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: Yes. Laura Bush actually went to the White House for tea with Melania after the president moved in. And there is this sisterhood among the former first ladies. And I go back and look at, you know, friendships between Lady Bird Johnson and Rosalynn Carter and Betty Ford, but also more recently between Michelle Obama and Laura Bush. NOEL KING, BYLINE: I want to ask you a question that's come up in my own friend group. And it has to do with the idea that Melania Trump is trolling her husband by announcing the trip to Africa, by the clothing that she chooses to wear, by picking cyberbullying as her signature issue. Do you think it's possible that we're reading too much into this? KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: I can't imagine that all of this is by accident. I think everything she does is carefully thought out. I mean, look at how she dresses and look at the care she takes in terms of the events that she does. They're few and far between. But she sees her role as separate from her husband's. No, I don't think it's by accident. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Kate Andersen Brower - she's a historian of the White House and author of "First Women: The Grace And Power Of America's First Ladies." Kate, thanks so much. KATE ANDERSEN BROWER: Thank you.

Noel King talks to author Kate Andersen Brower about Melania Trump's public role. In her "Be Best" campaign, the first lady speaks out against cyberbullying — something her husband is accused of.

Noel King spricht mit der Autorin Kate Andersen Brower über die öffentliche Rolle von Melania Trump. In ihrer \,,Be Best\“-Kampagne spricht sich die First Lady gegen Cybermobbing aus – was ihrem Mann vorgeworfen wird.

诺埃尔·金与作家凯特·安德森·布鲁尔谈论梅拉尼娅·特朗普的公共角色。在她的“做最好的”运动中，第一夫人公开反对网络暴力——她的丈夫被指控有网络暴力。

ALEX COHEN, host: Tonight's YouTube debate will provide an opportunity for some of the less well-known candidates to reach a mass audience. A chance they wouldn't be able to buy with their own financial resources. That's a big factor in keeping some of these candidates in the race especially when polls show they're almost unknown to the public. ALEX COHEN, host: NPR's senior Washington editor Ron Elving joins us now for more on presidential politics and polls. Hi, Ron. RON ELVING: Hello, Alex. ALEX COHEN, host: So there is a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. It's out today just in time for the debate tonight. What does it have to say? RON ELVING: It tells us that Hillary Clinton remains in a commanding position among the Democratic candidates, that Barack Obama has moved into a secure number two position, that John Edwards is fading back into the pack, and that while Bill Richardson is doing well in some states where he is concentrating, he is still only at three percent nationally. So definitely still back in the pack despite his rather aggressive push in recent weeks. ALEX COHEN, host: Ron, it seems like the presidential race is kind of taking on a bit of a two-candidate bias. It seems like there's Clinton and there's Obama, and forget about everybody else. RON ELVING: Every four years we seem to fall into the same pattern in which the media and most everyone else has trouble thinking in terms of more than two candidates in each party. We tend to just look at the frontrunner and the main challenger, and it's hard to get a third or a fourth person in there. RON ELVING: That's one of the reasons that these debates really make a big difference, because they keep the field large, they give people a much wider idea of the diversity of the candidates in every sense, including ideologically. And that makes sense this far out from the first events in January to see a wider field. ALEX COHEN, host: And Ron, are we seeing the same kind of two-horse race happening on the Republican side as well? RON ELVING: I think we will, although it's a little bit less clear who the number two horse is going to be. On the Republican side, all year, Rudy Giuliani has been running ahead, and on average of the major national polls right now he's at about 25 percent. It had been John McCain, who was his main rival in many of these polls, but now it appears to be Fred Thompson, not yet an official candidate but already running about 20 percent. That's on average across the major national polls. ALEX COHEN, host: And, of course, we're still in the summer of 2007. It's a bit early on. What do these polls tell us? Do they tell us anything beyond name recognition? RON ELVING: Name recognition is a huge factor. I think that it's probably the most important thing for Rudy Giuliani that people know who he is and associate him with 9/11 and being mayor of New York. They don't know much else about him but that's been powerful. RON ELVING: Often times, too, name recognition is a negative characteristic in a sense that people have identified something negative with a particular candidate's name, and I think that's the problem for John McCain. RON ELVING: At one point, he was the putative frontrunner, was expected to have all the institutional advantages in 2008. But what has happened is he's been too closely associated with an unpopular war in Iraq, an unpopular policy in Iraq, and he's been too closely associated with the President Bush plan for immigration, which many on the Republican side have seen as being amnesty for illegal immigrants. ALEX COHEN, host: This YouTube debate tonight, you've got to give them credit for tapping into pop culture. You almost have to wonder if there's going to be a debate at some point in the future where people will dial in at the end "American Idol" style. You know, vote for your favorite candidate - candidate 02, something like that. Do you see that happening any time? RON ELVING: Well, to some degree, we're already doing it. Some of the debates we've had up to now, and of course they may be unofficial debates, but joint candidate appearances that went out on cable television were followed by the opportunity for people to phone in or e-mail to that particular cable network with their choice of the winner. RON ELVING: There's a problem with that, of course, from a scientific standpoint. Those are totally unscientific polls. They are totally volunteered by the people who want to respond, and so they can be pushed or manipulated by a particular campaign, getting their people organized to repeatedly call in, repeatedly send e-mails. So from a scientific standpoint, that kind of choose-your-own in the "American Idol" fashion is highly suspect. ALEX COHEN, host: NPR's senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Thanks so much, Ron. RON ELVING: Thank you, Alex.

Monday night's Democratic presidential debate will provide an opportunity for some of the less well-known candidates to reach a mass audience, a chance they wouldn't be able to buy with their own financial resources. But a new Washington Post/ABC poll suggests that it's a two-candidate race among Democrats.

Die Präsidentschaftsdebatte der Demokraten am Montagabend bietet einigen der weniger bekannten Kandidaten die Gelegenheit, ein Massenpublikum zu erreichen, eine Chance, die sie sich mit ihren eigenen finanziellen Mitteln nicht erkaufen können. Eine neue Umfrage der Washington Post/ABC deutet jedoch darauf hin, dass es bei den Demokraten ein Rennen zwischen zwei Kandidaten gibt.

周一晚上的民主党总统候选人辩论将为一些不太知名的候选人提供一个接触大众的机会，一个他们无法用自己的财力购买的机会。但是《华盛顿邮报》和美国广播公司联合进行的一项民意调查显示，民主党内部两名候选人将展开角逐。

ALEX COHEN, host: Here in Southern California, there's tremendous relief. Grocery store workers have ratified a new contract, averting a strike. Four years ago, negotiations didn't go as well. Grocery workers went on strike for months and left shoppers scrambling. This week's compromise includes some novel health care provisions. The region's major supermarkets hope the plan will help to rein in workers' health care cost without compromising care. ALEX COHEN, host: NPR's Scott Horsley explains. SCOTT HORSLEY: The contract covering some 65,000 supermarket workers in Southern California comes after a tense six months of negotiations. It allows new workers to qualify more quickly for health benefits than they did under the old contract. It also includes health care reforms that one supermarket chain calls groundbreaking. SCOTT HORSLEY: Kevin Herglotz is the spokesman for Safeway, one of the three big chains that took part in the negotiation. He says the idea is to get supermarket workers to shop for bargains in health care just as their customers do in the grocery aisle. Mr. KEVIN HERGLOTZ (Spokesman, Safeway): We are a consumer-driven society. Everything we do, from buying a car to going into our grocery store, we always look at price. And for some reason in this country we have taken that element completely out of our health care decision-making. SCOTT HORSLEY: The new supermarket contract will encourage workers to pay attention to the price of health care by giving each employee control over a health savings account. Herglotz says any money that isn't spent one year can be saved for bigger health bills in future years. Mr. KEVIN HERGLOTZ (Spokesman, Safeway): So then you start to actually think about the costs and say that this prescription drug costs this amount, a generic drug versus a premium drug, maybe I'll choose the generic because I'm spending less money out of my savings account. SCOTT HORSLEY: The plan also has incentives for preventive care. Herglotz says Safeway has been offering a similar plan to non-union employees for two years now and save 15 percent on their health care bills. Unionized supermarkets are intensely aware that high health care costs put them at a disadvantage relative to non-union competitors. Herglotz says Safeway's CEO has become an evangelist for health care reform nationwide. Mr. KEVIN HERGLOTZ (Spokesman, Safeway): The more companies we get engaged in finding ways to reduce costs while not reducing the benefits, the more success we're going to have in truly reforming the system that is broken. SCOTT HORSLEY: Free marketers, including President Bush, have been promoting this idea of giving consumers more control over health care spending. But economist Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin of the Rand Corporation says it hasn't caught on quickly. Many workers are nervous about the plans, which often come with higher co-payments and deductibles. Still, she says about 40 percent of big employers now offer such plans as an option. Ms. MELINDA BEEUWKES BUNTIN (Co-director, Center for Health Care Organization, Rand Corporation): That doesn't extend, though, usually to unionized populations. But this may be a bellwether that we have a union that is entertaining in their contract negotiations some elements of what people would call consumerism or consumer-directed health care. SCOTT HORSLEY: Beeuwkes Buntin says early experience suggests the plans do cut costs for employers, at least in the short run. Whether they work in the long run is less certain. Ms. MELINDA BEEUWKES BUNTIN (Co-director, Center for Health Care Organization, Rand Corporation): People in this plans use less care. We don't know yet what exactly they're cutting back on and whether they're making wise decisions that won't adversely affect their health. SCOTT HORSLEY: Beeuwkes Buntin says if employers want their workers to make good decisions about health care, they need to provide not only financial incentives but also good information. SCOTT HORSLEY: Scott Horsley, NPR News, San Diego.

Grocery store workers in Southern California have ratified a new contract that includes some novel health-care provisions. The region's major supermarkets hope the plan will help to rein in workers' health care costs, without compromising care.

Die Beschäftigten von Lebensmittelgeschäften in Südkalifornien haben einen neuen Vertrag ratifiziert, der einige neuartige Bestimmungen zur Gesundheitsfürsorge enthält. Die großen Supermärkte der Region hoffen, dass der Plan dazu beitragen wird, die Gesundheitskosten für die Beschäftigten einzudämmen, ohne die Versorgung zu beeinträchtigen.

南加州的杂货店工作者已经批准了一项新的合同，其中包括一些新的医疗保健条款。该地区的大型超市希望该计划能有助于控制工作者的医疗保健费用，同时也不损害他们的医疗权益。

NOAH ADAMS, host: It's DAY TO DAY. I'm Noah Adams. DEBORAH AMOS, host: And I'm Deborah Amos. DEBORAH AMOS, host: In New Orleans yesterday, Brandon Tillman(ph) was convicted of murder. The name is not important but it's a big deal because the city has the highest per capita homicide rate in the country, and almost all killings go unpunished. In 2006, there were over 162 murders, just three convictions. So when District Attorney Eddie Jordan appeared before the city council, it wasn't smooth sailing. DEBORAH AMOS, host: NPR's Russell Lewis reports from New Orleans. RUSSEL LEWIS: As he spoke to the New Orleans City Council, several residents held up signs, including one that said Jordan Must Resign. During the two hour meeting Eddie Jordan stuck up for his office and pointed the changes he made last week, like disbanding the homicide unit and replacing it with seasoned investigators who will handle all violent crime cases. The move comes after Jordan dropped two high-profile murder cases that galvanized this community. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says he welcomes the D.A.'s changes. Mayor RAY NAGIN (Democrats, New Orleans): You know most people want to see a consistent pattern of behaviors from that office, and we'll see. But it's a good first step. RUSSEL LEWIS: Last week, the D.A. dropped a quintuple murder case after his office couldn't find the lone witness. The next day, New Orleans Police Department tracked her down. Mayor Nagin says the biggest issue on his to-do list is to make sure no suspected murderer is released from jail until the police, D.A. and judges talk about it first. RUSSEL LEWIS: Mayor Nagin can't fire Eddie Jordan because the district attorney is independently elected. But the mayor says if such things happen one more time, as he put it, my seatbelt's coming off. RUSSEL LEWIS: Russell Lewis, NPR News, New Orleans. NOAH ADAMS, host: And Eddie Jordan, the District Attorney in New Orleans, joins us now from member station WWNO. Welcome to our program, Mr. Jordan. Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Thank you. I'm very happy to be on your program. I just want to point out one thing at the very beginning. There was an indication of the number of murders in 2006. You know, it's those kinds of statistics that really put me in the posture of being the scapegoat for all the problems of the criminal justice system; 162 murders and then the information that there were three convictions. Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Well, first of all, we didn't have court for six months of 2006. All of those murders weren't solved. The vast majority of them weren't solved. And most murder cases don't go to trial in the same year. So obviously you're not going to end up with 80 trials in the year that those murders were committed. NOAH ADAMS, host: But still, if you stack those numbers up, compare them to, let's say Detroit or Baltimore or Washington, D.C., they would be quite a bit higher, just along the same lines. Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Well, I don't know what they would be, but obviously if you have a murder committed, let's say in January of 2006, more than likely that murder case is not going to go to trial at the end of 2006, especially if you don't have court for substantial portion of the year. NOAH ADAMS, host: As we just heard in Russell Lewis's story, Ray Nagin now wants you and the police and the judges to get together before a murder suspect is let out of jail. He's almost issuing a warning to your office. Did you take umbrage at that? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Well, you know, I don't think the - we've sat down and talked with the mayor many times about the issues involved, and I don't think he understands them at all. Of course I do believe that there should be ongoing communication between the police department and the D.A.'s Office about any case that is close to being not being prosecutable. And we have procedures and policies in place to make sure that that kind of communication takes place all the time. NOAH ADAMS, host: The mayor is disagreeing with this, though. He's saying you've got to talk to me before you let somebody out of jail, and this was brought up at the city council meeting in the murder of five youngsters in an SUV last year. Driver shot, four passengers executed. Last week the suspect was let go because of no witness. The next day the police superintendent has a news conference and has the witness there in the room. Did you know that was going to happen? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): I had no idea that the police had found this witness until that morning. NOAH ADAMS, host: The issue here, though, isn't it really that the communication between your office and the police department is completely broken down in this quintuple murder and you didn't know what the police superintendent was going to do the next day and surely it was embarrassing for you? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): I think there's always room for communication - improved communication between our offices. We found that there are systemic barriers to communication between the police department and the D.A.'s office. And we're determined to remove those barriers. NOAH ADAMS, host: There have been many calls for your resignation. There's talk in the state legislature of impeachment. There is support in the community, the group known as Safe Streets/Strong Communities. Their leader said the one man fighting corruption in the police department is now being criticized. Do you feel you're being unfairly attacked and asked to leave office? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): There's no question about it. I've been unfairly attacked and I've been singled out. I mentioned I went into great detail about the progress that we've made under my administration and we've done so under extremely difficult circumstances with little or no resources at times. And it's interesting to note that they were not able to refute that information, and they struggled with the facts because that's not what their perception was and yet the facts speaks for themselves. They speak strongly that this is a competent administration and that we are a fair administration. Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): We've taken on tough cases and sometimes that's created opposition from certain groups in the community. But we intend to stand strong and go forward and prosecute those cases that we believe are prosecutable. And we want to hold everyone to the letter of the law and make sure that our city is as safe as possible. NOAH ADAMS, host: If you look at the numbers from last year, the murder numbers in New Orleans, the rate doubled in the second half of the year. So if you project this year, 2007, you could be over 300 murders. What is your vision for New Orleans? And do you think anything that your office can do is going to help that situation? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Actually, I think that the numbers should be less than 300. It seems that it would be in the 200 range. I think that's totally unacceptable. I don't think we should have any murders in our city. One murder is too many. But we have had a number of unwholesome people coming back to the city, who have been involved in drug dealing and killing in connection with drugs. I think most of the murders are related to drugs. That is another reason why I do not think that we can ignore the drug enforcement issue in our city. Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): I think it's wrong for people to say let all of the drug offenders out on the streets. And yet that is one of the solutions that's being offered, that if we let all of the drug offenders out, then we can somehow - we can focus on violent crime. Well, that - I think they're interconnected. They're interrelated. And I think that we have to do both, and we're convicting people for drug violations and we're also convicting people for violent crime offenses. And that violent offender unit has an excellent track record, and we think that we're going to continue to have success in that area. NOAH ADAMS, host: The election is in 2008 - the reelection. Do you intend to run again? Mr. EDDIE JORDAN (District Attorney, New Orleans): Yes, I do intend to run and I had tremendous support at that city council hearing. There was outrage and the voices of many of my supporters. They feel that I am being unfairly singled out. They feel that the criminal justice system has a number of problems and that those problems go back many years, and they feel that given the constraints that I have, the under-funded institution that I inherited and that I've been able to obtain more funding for, that I am doing a good job under the circumstances. NOAH ADAMS, host: New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan.

Embattled New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan is facing new calls for his replacement. Russell Lewis reports on opposition to Jordan, then Noah Adams speaks with Jordan about his record on prosecuting crime and the reorganization of the district attorney's office.

Der umkämpfte Bezirksstaatsanwalt von New Orleans, Eddie Jordan, sieht sich mit neuen Forderungen nach seinem Ersatz konfrontiert. Russell Lewis berichtet über die Opposition gegen Jordanien, dann spricht Noah Adams mit Jordan über seine Bilanz bei der Verfolgung von Straftaten und die Reorganisation der Staatsanwaltschaft.

焦头烂额的新奥尔良地区检察官埃迪乔丹正面临替换掉他的新呼声。罗素·刘易斯报告反对乔丹，诺亚·亚当斯与乔丹谈到他起诉犯罪的记录和重组地区检察官办公室的事情。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: With all of the week's remarkable political developments, it might have been easy to miss Vice President Mike Pence's blistering speech directed at China this week. He issued an indictment of the Chinese government, criticizing China for everything from forcing American companies to give up intellectual property to trying to chase off the U.S. Navy. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: China wants nothing less than to push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies, but they will fail. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Frank Langfitt spent a decade reporting in China, and he's here with us now in our studios in Washington, D.C., to tell us more about the administration's case and why the speech was so remarkable. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Frank, thank you so much for being here. FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Hey, Michel - great to be here. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, what is the significance of Vice President Pence's speech, and why now? FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: It's so striking - the tone. If you went back, if you look back over 30 years, 40 years of diplomacy, Americans were actually quite careful not to be directly confrontational. This is very, very confrontational, very aggressive. It almost has a feel to me of a Reagan evil empire speech. What it's signaling is he sees China as the greatest threat to the United States. FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: And in terms of the why now, later in the speech, he talked about - Vice President Pence talked about China trying to influence the midterm elections, though he didn't provide any solid evidence, and that could be a pretext of blaming a bad result for Republicans on China. But there's a much bigger picture here that we should be talking about. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm going to hold that thought for a minute, but... FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Sure. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...I wanted to ask you, have you seen a shift in how the Trump administration has been dealing with China? VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: What I see with the Trump administration is it coincides with a sea change in attitude among scholars in the United States, American businesses. In the old days, you're going back to the '90s, 2000s, American business was extremely supportive of the Communist Party. They're making a lot of money there. They now feel that the playing field is not level at all. They do feel sometimes held up to give up intellectual property. So there's been a big shift here in attitude towards China. And I really think actually Beijing is just catching up to it. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you're saying that the sea change is not just this administration's attitude. It goes beyond that. In fact, there was a clip from Vice President Pence's speech where he spoke to that. Let's play it. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: The Chinese Communist Party is rewarding or coercing American businesses, movie studios, universities, think tanks, scholars, journalists and local state and federal officials. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is that true? Can you give us some examples? FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Absolutely. And some of it is self-censorship. I'll give you an example with - in movies. There are a lot of movies that you might have made in the '90s, early 2000s that might have been critical of China. You couldn't get the financing for them now because the Chinese audience has grown so much for movies. It's so important to the bottom line of a global film. A great example would be a remake of a movie called "Red Dawn" in which the Chinese soldiers were to invade America. In post-production, they had to change the Chinese soldiers to North Korean soldiers because there's no way the Chinese government would have ever let that movie into China. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What about academics, scholars? FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Absolutely it is. And journalists, too - it is - it's much harder now. Getting visas can be more difficult. They use them as a way to punish scholars who write about subjects that they don't like - about - like Xinjiang, a far western area in China, as well as Tibet and Taiwan. And so there is certainly a feeling that some scholars do self-censor in order to get visas. Others are very brave and are willing to not be able to get visas to go in. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So one more question, Frank. FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Sure. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The U.S., as you know, is very focused on Russian influence in elections and Russian efforts to interfere with U.S. elections. When it comes to undermining confidence in democracy - particularly, let's say, in the United States - which country is the bigger concern, Russia or China? FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Well, I think Russia has been very overt about it. I think China - what's concerning about China is that it's much more of a challenge. It also would like to undermine the message of the United States, which is freedom and democracy - the difference being that Russia does not have a business plan. It's a relatively small - compared to China - in terms of economy. China's an enormous economy getting very close to surpassing ours in the future. And they're also a much more sophisticated and well-run country, and so I think it's a much, much greater challenge. But, these days, because of what happened in the 2016 election, this is what we focus on, which is Russia. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's NPR's London correspondent Frank Langfitt visiting with us here in Washington, D.C. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Frank, thank you so much. FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Happy to do it.

Vice President Mike Pence gave an aggressive speech against the Chinese government this past week.

Vizepräsident Mike Pence hielt in der vergangenen Woche eine aggressive Rede gegen die chinesische Regierung.

上周，美国副总统迈克·彭斯发表了一篇针对中国政府的攻击性演讲。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now we want to head into the Barbershop to put a bow on this incredibly divisive and emotional week in Washington, D.C. The Barbershop is where we gather interesting people to talk about what's in the news and what's on their mind. So we're going to go back to the major story of the week - the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Now, we've been hearing a lot from senators and spokespersons and activists, but we wanted to see if we could broaden things out to hear other conversations. And we thought, who better to talk to than local radio call-in hosts and journalists who hear directly from their audiences on a regular basis? So we called Liz Ruskin. She's a reporter with Alaska Public Radio who has been closely following one of the most closely watched senators, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who ultimately decided not to support the Kavanaugh nomination, the only Republican not to do so. She's here with us in our studios. Welcome. Thanks for coming. LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: Hi there. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Charlie Sykes is with us once again. He hosted at a conservative political talk show for many years in Wisconsin. He's an author and a political commentator. And he's with us once again via Skype. Charlie, welcome back. CHARLIE SYKES: Good to be with you. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. Great. I'm glad you're here. And then, finally, on the phone with us is Kerri Miller. She is the host of MPR News With Carey Miller. That's at Minnesota Public Radio. Kerri, thank you so much for joining us. KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: Hi, Michel. Thank you. KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: And let me start by saying that nobody is pretending that this is scientific research, but I did want to reach out to all of you because I know that people - your audiences reach out back to you. And, Kerri, I'm going to start with you because you host a call-in show, and we pulled some tape from it. Let's just play a little bit of it. Here it is. KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: I think that the Democrats have got completely crazy. I used to be a Democrat. I will not be voting Democrat. I'm just going to go Republican all the way down the line. It's like we have turned against each other. It's brother against brother. It's sister against sister. This is really bad climate that we're in right now. KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: I am very dismayed with the choice of picking party over morals or character. And also, I think it was fairly obvious from the proceedings that Kavanaugh wasn't fully truthful. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Kerri, as you can hear, you're getting people from all across the political spectrum. But I understand that you were actually telling us that the comments aren't falling neatly along the usual partisan lines. Tell us a little bit more. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Exactly right. In the show that you're playing the comments from, my question to the audience was - is - what's going on with Brett Kavanaugh and the confirmation hearings motivating you as a voter? Is it influencing the way you're thinking of some very competitive races in Minnesota? And, you know, I can usually predict how the calls are going to come in. What I am seeing is people are highly engaged and really knowledgeable about what was happening. And they were calling with some unexpected things to say. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean, you hear that one caller saying, I'm disappointed that it's all about party. You hear the other caller saying, I usually vote Democratic, this has turned me off. And I think that's pretty representative of the calls that I've been getting over the last couple of weeks about this. People are really turned off. KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: Charlie, what - I'm sorry. Go ahead. They're turned off by... KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: They're turned off by the bare politics of this. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Charlie, what about you? What are people tweeting you and saying to you on social media and elsewhere? CHARLIE SYKES: Yeah. I wanted to mention, of course, I don't have a radio talk show anymore. But yeah, there's no question about it that you have a high level of engagement. And there's - this is one of those moments where there's an intersection of emotion and substance. Virtually every issue that you could imagine is in play here, which explains why you have this really bitter partisan divide, you know, much more divisive and crucial, I think, than even the health care vote because the health care vote is a piece of legislation that could be re-voted upon. This will determine the fate of the courts for 30 years. CHARLIE SYKES: So there's no question about it that there is a Kavanaugh bump on the right, that there is a rallying around - among Republicans who feel that he has been treated unfairly. But obviously, you know, that doesn't mean that there is not anti-Kavanaugh no bump at all. The big question that I have is, is this a sugar high for Republicans, or is it really a game changer? And nobody knows because we've never been here before. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Liz, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of only two senators to vote across party lines. She voted against Kavanaugh. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the Democrat, being the other, he voted for Kavanaugh. I was wondering - you've been covering not just her, but you've also been covering the people who are trying to influence her vote. Tell us about that. What do you think based on what you have been reporting influenced her thinking on this? LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: I think she was very much moved by all the women that came to Washington, women in Alaska jumped on last-minute airplanes, got on red-eyes and got up the next morning off the plane without any sleep and, you know, went to lobby her and went to talk to her. And a lot of them were sexual assault survivors. Alaska has a sky-high rate of sexual assault. And a lot of them told their stories. And the ACLU sponsored a big group of Alaskans. So a lot of them were lawyers. And they, you know, made their case, especially about judicial temperament. They actually brought the judicial code of conduct into their meetings with her, and she cited that on the floor. So a lot of the survivors and attorneys I talked to who've met with Lisa Murkowski in the last couple of days felt like they heard their arguments and their stories in her statement, at least to some degree. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And you also, though, were the reporter who asked her if she had - she herself had had a #MeToo moment, which is something that a lot of reporters have picked up on. Do you think that was relevant? LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: It was relevant. I don't think it was, you know, it wasn't the direct cause of how she reacted. But she didn't tell us much about her #MeToo moment, but the emphatic way that she answered immediately without thinking about it told me that she identified to some extent with the #MeToo stories and that these stories must have really resonated with her more because she had that experience. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, Kerri, we're hearing so much about anger - right? - that anger's so much a part of our political environment now. Are you hearing that? And what is it that people say they're angry about? KERRI MILLER, BYLINE: I am hearing that. I hear kind of short fuses. And, you know, I've been doing the show for over a decade. I can tell when people feel like they're kind of at the end of their rope, and this is one of those times. It feels chaotic and disordered. And we have a bunch of highly competitive races in Minnesota. And so the atmosphere already feels elevated and then you throw this Kavanaugh situation into that. And the - I think the anger is kind of hair trigger. One wrong comment by one caller can trigger a big social media reaction or three other calls into the show, you know, and still with four weeks to go. I think people are experiencing this at a, you know, at a kind of level that we haven't seen in our state - again, with a bunch of competitive races thrown in. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Charlie, what about you? I know that in the past, just when you were concluding your long stint as a talk show host in Wisconsin, you wrote about the anger. And, frankly, you wrote with some regret about your - what you saw as kind of your role in stoking it. And now that you've had a little bit of distance from it, what do you think is - do you agree that this is just a hair-trigger moment and everybody seems elevated? What's your take on why that is? CHARLIE SYKES: No, she's absolutely right that it is very much a hair-trigger moment. You can really see that on social media. It's interesting that you put it that way because just the slightest wrong turn or the use of the wrong word or any attempt at nuance and you're going to be flattened on social media. And I think that this is a reflection of the tribalization of our politics and the substitute of rage for argumentation. You really get the sense that no one any longer is trying to persuade anyone or to change anyone's mind. The goal seems to be just to beat the other side, to make heads explode. CHARLIE SYKES: And I think that's been a culture that's been coming a long time, and it's really come to a head right now at this particular moment. And, you know, it's very much a - maybe a, you know, a landmark in the the Trump era where everything seems to be about, you know, smash-mouth politics and the politics of, you know, deny, deny, deny and attack, attack, attack and without much regard for the long-term consequences to the culture or to the institutions that we're talking about. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And, Liz, of course, here's where I'm going to have to ask you to speculate, but we already know that, you know, the president's already said that Lisa Murkowski is going to pay a political price for this. Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, former vice presidential nominee, tweeted about this, saying that Lisa Murkowski is going to pay a political price for it. I do have to say that, you know, my inbox all afternoon has been filling up with interest groups from both sides of the aisle identifying either party who they say is going to pay a political price for this. But talk to me about the Alaska case and about - Senator Murkowski. What is your sense of it? LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: My sense of it is that Senator Murkowski is more popular than Sarah Palin in Alaska and that President Trump might not have his finger on the pulse of Lisa Murkowski's base. Among her base, this is - this was the position they wanted her to take. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Really, across party lines or among Republicans or? LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: Yeah. A lot of her base is moderate Democrats. I had Democrats this week tell me that she was the only Republican they've ever voted for, and they expected her to do the right thing. And they thought that she would listen to them. And I think among her base, this was the move that they wanted her to make. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, we'll have to see. I'm sorry I don't have time to dig into this even more. And I thank you all so much for the kind of rare calm conversation that we seem to be having difficulty having these days. I want to thank all of you for that. Liz Ruskin is a reporter with Alaska Public Radio. Charlie Sykes is an author and political commentator. Kerri Miller is the host of NPR News at Minnesota Public Radio. Everybody, thank you all so much for talking with us today. CHARLIE SYKES: Thank you. LIZ RUSKIN, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Kerri Miller, the host of MPR News at Minnesota Public Media; Charlie Sykes, host of the Daily Standard podcast; and Liz Ruskin, a reporter with Alaska Public Media.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit Kerri Miller, der Moderatorin von MPR News bei Minnesota Public Media; Charlie Sykes, Moderator des Podcasts Daily Standard; und Liz Ruskin, eine Reporterin bei Alaska Public Media.

NPR的米歇尔马丁与克里米勒，明尼苏达公共媒体的MPR新闻主持人，查理赛克斯，每日标准播客的主持人和利兹罗斯金，阿拉斯加公共媒体记者交谈。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So we're talking about immigrant's rights, Muslim cabdrivers who won't pick up passengers who they think have been drinking and more. Joining us today from our NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., is economist Julianne Malveaux, the president and CEO of Last Word Productions. From our New York bureau, Walter Field, CEO and publisher of the NorthStarNetwork.com; and Glenn Loury, professor of the social sciences and professor of economics at Brown University is at member station WRNI in Providence, Rhode Island. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Welcome everybody, and Glenn, let me start with you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Latinos are a huge population in the United States, but not everyone is a citizen, and not all citizens vote. Not all citizens of any race vote. How much are Latinos, do you think, going to be able to impact the elections of 2006? Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Well, I don't know. I'm not an expert on the politics side, but there can be no doubt that the presence of Latinos in American society is going to be exerting a profound impact on us for many generations to come across a broad front. I think the immigration issue a potential time bomb for the Republicans in that, while the president has shown some leadership in proposing, you know, some efforts to regularize the situation of people in the country, others in the Republican Party have seen it in their interest to demagogue this issue a little bit because there's a lot of resentment of immigration abroad in the country. And that could really redound to the detriment of the Republicans in the long run if they alienate the Latino voter. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Finally, I would say that I think African-Americans have a particular interest in how Latinos assimilate themselves into the American political structure. It matters a lot as to whether or not Latinos are sympathetic to African-American claims. I think opportunity may be being missed for black politics in not taking the Martin Luther King legacy and applying it in a progressive way to the situation of, especially, undocumented workers in the country, because that might garnish sympathy from Latinos, which would be politically beneficial to blacks in the long run. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Julianne, I remember reading a book called Black and Multi-racial Politics that examines cities where, basically, black and brown people, if you want to put it that way, were a majority in the city when put together but never really acted jointly for political goals. Do you feel like blacks and Latinos are going to begin to interact more profoundly, more deeply and more aggressively, or is it just going to be oil and water? Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Well, I think that it's a mutual interest, as Glenn has said, for people to act in concert. I think that, however, white folks have had a lot of fun playing these two groups off against each other. I remember in 2000 when the census numbers were coming, and I was watching This Week. George Will sat on that panel and virtually salivated and said: African-Americans are no longer going to be the largest majority, and if we can get Latinos to vote with us - I mean, he just went there. And you've seen a fair amount of that. You've also seen African-American gains have been tenuous, Farai, that all too often when you see a Latino aspiring politician -we saw it with Villaraigosa in L.A., we've seen it in New York - the tension is palpably there. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): But when we look at a series of economic issues, especially when we look at wage issues, what you often will see is that there are points of synergy. When you look at a leader like a Dennis Rivera in New York, who leads low-wage workers, and you talk about the cross-over there, those are the things that we have to bear in mind. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Here's the difference, though. Latinos have tended almost to split their vote with Republicans, while African-Americans have not. And I remember former Congressman Bill Clay saying, you don't have permanent friends or permanent enemies but instead, permanent interests. When are our interests are the interests of economic justice - social and economic justice - there will be times when we can and must align with our Latino brothers and sisters. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): But there may be also times we do not. Latino population is not unified on the immigration issue, either. Talk to some second and third generation Latinos about what they think about immigration, and they too, for interesting reasons, have some ambivalence. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Walter you know, on that point, I remember going to a rally that we covered here on NEWS & NOTES and there were a few black and Latino supporters of the Minutemen, who were an anti, or not an anti, but a border enforcement militia I guess you'd call it. So certainly not all Latinos are the same and not all African-Americans are the same. Mr. FIELDS: It may be foolish expect that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. Absolutely. But in the long run what do you think politicians are going to start doing to really recruit Latinos? And will that act to the detriment of African-American interests or will it be one big happy political family? Mr. FIELDS: Well, we have practical experience here in New York City. We're on vote away from having a majority black and Latino New York City Council. The last mayoral election, the majority of voters in New York City were black and Latino. Mr. FIELDS: We have experience with non-citizen voting. For almost 30 years in New York City, non-citizens could vote in local school board elections. There is now a bill before the New York City Council that will bring that back but for municipal elections. Mr. FIELDS: So I think when we start talking about engaging Latino voters I think we have to talk about the broader issue of civic engagement, because there are a number of ways that you can be civically engaged beyond voting. In New York City, I'm hoping to see a day when we bring back non-citizen voting, particularly in local municipal elections. Because if you get people engaged at a local level, it becomes more likely that they will vote for their state legislature, for members of Congress and in a presidential election. Mr. FIELDS: In many ways I think we're putting the cart before the horse when we start talking about the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential elections in terms of the impact of Latino vote. This will happen over time and it will happen in stages. But there is some real practical experience here in New York City that I think can lead the way. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's a fascinating situation. But let's transition to national politics. President George Bush held a press conference yesterday and he talked about staying the course in Iraq, the economy and the Foley scandal. Let's listen to his exchange with a reporter on that issue. Unidentified Man (Reporter): Mr. President, with growing numbers of House members and staffers saying that they knew of and told others about a problem with Mark Foley some years ago, has House Speaker Hastert lost touch within his own ranks? And has the scandal damaged Hastert's credibility and effectiveness in maintaining party control in the midterm elections? Unidentified Man (Reporter): President GEORGE W. BUSH: No, I think the Speaker's strong statements have made it clear to not only, you know, the party members but to the country that he wants to find out the facts. All of us want to find out the facts. I mean this is a, you know, it's disgusting behavior. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And the president is going to meet with Hastert, the head of the House, today. But this is a scandal that seems to have legs. Julianne, do you think that the president waited too long to make a public statement? Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Oh, absolutely. And he's been making these equivocating statements along the way. Hastert's a good coach, what does that have to do with anything? What was he coaching? Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): You know, so he's made these statements along the way until he got to the press conference and finally used the term disgusting. He's also - I think that the Republicans are playing a game here. They don't want to admit too much fault. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Certainly pedophilia is not a partisan type of behavior, but certainly Mr. Foley not only - you know, it's clear that there was a cover-up. The only Democrat on the Page Board did not know about this while all the Republicans did. So there clearly was a partisan cover-up, and there are going to be partisan consequences for the partisan cover-up. The president really waited too long, but then so did many others in the House of Representatives. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And, Walter, do you think that this issue, Foley, is really going to overshadow any other initiatives by the administration at this point? I mean it seems, you know, for someone like me, who's been observing or reporting on Washington for a long time, you look at what happened with Clinton and Lewinsky, and that just trumped everything. It seems like sex, maybe we shouldn't be surprised, trumps all sorts of other issues of national importance. Mr. FIELDS: Well, I don't think it's the Foley incident per se. You have to go back to when the Republicans were the minority in the House. Newt Gingrich really built his attack upon the Democrats upon the issue of values and trust. And that's how the Republicans became the majority and swept the Democrats in '94. So this is coming back to bite them now, because now they have a situation where their entire mantra is being tested and the public does not believe them anymore. Mr. FIELDS: What we've had is a series of events in Washington, D.C., whether it was Bill Clinton, whether it was the Clarence Thomas episode, whether it was the current episode, where the American public has now really set a pox on both houses. Because they don't believe politicians anymore when you hear one of these scandals, because there've been too many. Mr. FIELDS: So it's not just Foley. There is a general disbelief among the electorate that these elected officials can't be trusted. And the Republican Party is in the crosshairs now because they earned the leadership, and you can't escape that. When you say you're the leader and you make your claim upon issues of value and trust, and then you see your leader sort of in this plausible deniability phase, people don't believe it. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Glenn, Walter says a pox on both houses. And there are a lot of people who just tune out and say I don't trust either party. What's the cure for that? I mean, you know I guess I shouldn't ask you. Because I mean it's like there's probably not just one cure. But, you know, give us your opinion on that. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Well, I mean what I want to say about this Foley scandal is, I mean of course the president is going to back the speaker of the House. I mean he's trying to stop the bleeding, the hemorrhaging. But it's going to be a tough thing to stop. I mean this is a devastating blow to them. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): And see, it resonates with, like, the Terry Schiavo thing. No one can mention Terry Schiavo now without a sense of, you know, the administration and the party really blew it. The stem cell issue is hurting Republican candidates out there on the stop. And every now and then Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson says something crazy. And it's the hypocrisy. I mean this was supposed to be a moral movement, okay? And what we find is a pedophile right there at the center of it. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Whether it's a cover-up or not, this is a devastating blow to the sort of political reputation of this movement which George W. Bush is at the head of. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Julianne, though, I mean again to go back to the topic of sex, which is always an evergreen. We have had Democrats and Republicans, throughout history - I mean look at Thomas Jefferson, who had his enslaved mistress who he had children with - sex is not - I mean there's definitely at least a couple of issues here, sex and trust. But I still wonder if sex isn't the sort of inciting factor, the chum in the water that brings the sharks to even cover an issue like this when you can't get folks to cover issues like Medicare or Medicaid because they're too boring. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Well, Farai, certainly there are - we all have an encyclopedia of issues that we feel ought to be covered that aren't being covered by the press for any number of reasons. And people's hackles do go up. And with the 24-hour cable churn, something like this is the fodder of the MSNBCs and FOXs and CNNs of the world. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): But here's the thing. Let's not get away from the fact that you have a custodial program where you're sending young people and basically you have a member of Congress who has systematically violated the tenets of this custodial program. Anyone who has adolescent children who have thought about being a page or an intern, you know, their hackles go up with something like this. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): So although the sex sells issue is important, let's not also minimize the importance of what has happened here in terms of things like trust from people who have lectured, Democrats who've lectured Bill Clinton. I mean that's why Newt Gingrich isn't in the House anymore. He's going to talk about Clinton, but he's, you know, basically left a breast cancer wife on her deathbed? So, you know, double standards and triple standards. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): And when people who preach morality behave immorally, obviously you say it's shark - you know, blood's in the water and the sharks are out. But it's still an important issue. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I guess, very briefly, Glenn, do you think - there's some people who've even talked about shutting down the page program. Should there be more oversight of programs like this with miners? Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Well, of course. This should have never been allowed to happen. I mean Julianne Malveaux is exactly right about the special nature of this and the trust that's been entrusted. And whoever knew what? And I mean I guess we're going to find out. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): It was pretty obvious that Mark Foley was a pretty sleazy guy. That was kind of apparently not uncommon knowledge. And I mean the late night comedians are now, you know, they've got a moat imagined around the residence of the pages to keep the congressmen out. But then the congressmen are pole vaulting over the moat to get into the kids. I mean this is what it's come to. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Glenn Loury from Brown University, economist Julianne Malveaux and Walter Fields of the NorthStarNetwork.com. Thank you all. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Economics and Social Sciences, Brown University): Thank you. Ms. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist and Author): Thanks, Farai. Mr. FIELDS: Okay. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Next on NEWS & NOTES, NPR's senior correspondent Juan Williams and his guests break down the latest news from Capitol Hill in Political Corner. And decades later, punk rockers' Bad Brains are still blowing minds away with a classic performance. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You're listening to NEWS & NOTES from NPR News.

Farai Chideya's guests are Walter Fields, CEO and publisher of the NorthStarNetwork.com; economist and author Julianne Malveaux; and Brown economics and social sciences professor Glenn Loury. Thursday's topics include Latino voter registration and President Bush's comment on the Mark Foley scandal.

Farai Chideyas Gäste sind Walter Fields, CEO und Herausgeber von NorthStarNetwork.com; Ökonomin und Autorin Julianne Malveaux; und Brown-Professor für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Glenn Loury. Zu den Themen am Donnerstag gehören die Registrierung der Latino-Wähler und der Kommentar von Präsident Bush zum Mark-Foley-Skandal.

法拉伊·迟德亚的嘉宾是沃尔特·菲尔兹，他是NorthStarNetwork.com的首席执行官兼出版商；经济学家兼作家朱丽安·马尔沃；布朗经济学和社会科学教授格伦·卢里。周四的话题包括拉丁裔选民登记和布什总统对马克·福利丑闻的评论。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Cleveland. NEAL CONAN, host: Speaker future won't back down on taxes. Speaker present vows to stay on as minority leader. And Alaska starts counting its write-ins, with spellcheck. Unidentified Child: M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I. NEAL CONAN, host: It's Wednesday and time for a Kow-with-a-K edition of the Political Junkie. President RONALD REAGAN: There you go again. Former Vice President WALTER MONDALE: When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad. Where's the beef? Former Senator BARRY GOLDWATER (Republican, Arizona): Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Former Senator LLOYD BENTSEN (Democrat, Texas): Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. President RICHARD NIXON: You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore. Former Governor SARAH PALIN (Republican, Alaska): Lipstick. Former Governor SARAH PALIN (Republican, Alaska): President GEORGE W. BUSH: But I'm the decider. NEAL CONAN, host: Every Wednesday, NPR political editor Ken Rudin joins us to review the week in politics. Today, he's with us from Studio 4 at the Idea Center at Playhouse Square in downtown Cleveland from member station WCPN. NEAL CONAN, host: And when we last left our heroes, the election was mostly over. Since then, we've got winners in Connecticut, Colorado, Washington and several other places, not yet, though, in Alaska. NEAL CONAN, host: While back in D.C., Nancy Pelosi wants to stay on as the number one House Democrat, but there's a party fight over number two. And he's back: George W. Bush defends his record in "Decision Points." NEAL CONAN, host: In a bit, we'll focus on politics here in Ohio, where Republicans swung five congressional districts and swept every statewide office, including the governor's. NEAL CONAN, host: Jim Renacci, the representative-elect from the Ohio 16th joins us. Later in the program, "American Splendor" as immigrant art. But first, political junkie Ken Rudin joins us here in the Buckeye State. As usual, we begin with a trivia question. Hey, Ken. KEN RUDIN: Hi, Neal. Well, of course, you know, Ohio was the launch pad for the 2006 big Democratic wins, and obviously in 2010 big Republican wins. Ohio is a key state. KEN RUDIN: But you did mention Nancy Pelosi. You did mention speaker-to-be and former speakers and upcoming speakers. Well, here's a speaker question: Who was the last - and also we'll be talking about Newt Gingrich, perhaps. NEAL CONAN, host: Perhaps, yes, you never know. KEN RUDIN: Who was the last person who had been speaker of the House who ran for president? NEAL CONAN, host: Who was the last person to be speaker of the House... KEN RUDIN: Who had been speaker of the House. NEAL CONAN, host: ...to run for president of the United States - from a major party, we assume. 800-989-8255 if you think you know the answer. Or you can zap us an email, talk@npr.org. The winner, of course, gets a fabulous no-prize T-shirt. NEAL CONAN, host: In the meantime, Ken, we have some business to catch up on from last week. When last we left our heroes, as we mentioned earlier in the program, we thought we knew the winner in Colorado. It turned out we were right. KEN RUDIN: We do. It's Michael Bennet. He is the senator, not re-elected because he was an appointee, but he will finish out the term, a new term once led by Ken Salazar, the interior secretary. Ken Buck conceded defeat in Colorado. KEN RUDIN: Also since our last show, Patty Murray was declared the winner, re-election to a fourth term in Washington the state. In the governor's race, Pat Quinn narrowly was elected in Illinois. He succeeded the honorable Rod Blagojevich. Dan Malloy, the Democrat, was elected in Connecticut, first Democrat elected in that state since - governor since 1986. KEN RUDIN: Rick Scott won the big race in Florida, a very close race for governor there. And in members of Congress, we have Jerry Connelly in Virginia; Rick Larsen in Washington; Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona; Raul Grijalva in Arizona, thanks to Keith Olbermann's money; and also Bob Etheridge of North Carolina was defeated for re-election, a big surprise there. KEN RUDIN: We still have seven undeclared, undecided House races, all of them held by Democrats. Right now, the Republicans are a plus 60, a net of 60, and they're leading in five of the seven. So the Republicans could wind up with 65 new members of the House. And of course, we have the Alaska Senate race to talk about. NEAL CONAN, host: And the Alaska Senate race, the last time we saw a recount this exciting, it was in Florida. KEN RUDIN: Yes, and of course, and this time is even more confusing because this is the - leading the race right now is a write-in candidate, and of course that's Lisa Murkowski. She was defeated for re-nomination in the August primary by Joe Miller, Tea Party-backed candidate. But she ran as a write-in, and right now, she is leading - or at least, let me put it this way: Write-in votes are leading, because there have been - there are 160 officially-sanctioned write-in candidates. We assume an overwhelming number are Lisa Murkowski's. NEAL CONAN, host: But is spelling going to matter? KEN RUDIN: Well, that's exactly the thing. And Joe Miller, the Republican who apparently was defeated, or at least we think he may have been defeated, has already called for a lawsuit saying that you have to spell Lisa Murkowski or Murkowski correctly. You can't - it's not up to voter intent. You have to spell the name correctly. And that's going to be a big court fight in Alaska. NEAL CONAN, host: Citing the principle of Bush v. Gore. KEN RUDIN: Exactly. NEAL CONAN, host: You mentioned Keith Olbermann, the, of course, anchor on MSNBC, on the "Countdown" program. He was suspended, at least for a few days, for stepping over the ethical lines. KEN RUDIN: Well, if you - it depends on whether you consider Keith Olbermann a journalist or not, and some people don't. And maybe Keith Olbermann doesn't, because he felt there was nothing wrong in giving money to three Democratic candidates: Jack Conway, the Senate candidate in Kentucky; and two members of the Congress from Arizona. KEN RUDIN: And he said, well, look, you know, he's very defiant about this, and he loves the attention. And he said: Look, you know, you have to deal with the realities of 21st-century journalism. There are some of us who don't consider what he does, and what O'Reilly does on Fox, journalism, or at least journalists. But, you know, that's not saying... NEAL CONAN, host: The ethical rules are by the parent company, NBC, which does consider itself - what it does journalism. KEN RUDIN: Exactly and says that so-called journalists are not allowed to contribute to candidates, and Keith Olbermann gave money to three Democratic candidates. NEAL CONAN, host: We have some people on the line who think they know the answer to this week's trivia question, again the last person to have been speaker of the House of Representatives to then run for president of the United States. NEAL CONAN, host: And let's see if we can go first to - this is Paul(ph), Paul with us from Lansing, Michigan. PAUL (Caller): Yup, station WKAR. I think I'm going to be wrong on this one because I know he was majority leader in the Senate: LBJ. NEAL CONAN, host: LBJ did serve a bit in Congress but I don't believe as speaker of the House. KEN RUDIN: That's right. He was a member of the House, and he was majority leader when he was elected vice president in 1960, but LBJ was never speaker of the House. PAUL (Caller): Yeah. That's what I figured but thought I'd take a stab. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, thanks very much. Let's see - I'm sorry if I hung up on you there before you were finished, but anyway, Juno(ph), Juno with us from Rochester in Minnesota. JUNO (Caller): Yes, hi, this is Juno in Rochester, Minnesota. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. JUNO (Caller): And I believe the answer is - the first one would have been John Bell of Tennessee. KEN RUDIN: His name is familiar. I think it rings a bell. But no, I want the last person. JUNO (Caller): Oh, Newt Gingrich then. KEN RUDIN: Newt Gingrich has been speaker, but he never ran for president. He might one day. NEAL CONAN, host: He's thought about it. KEN RUDIN: But he has not run yet. JUNO (Caller): Okay, thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much, Juno. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Bob(ph), Bob with us from Phoenix. BOB (Caller): Yeah, hi. This is just a wag, but I'm going to guess that it's Tip O'Neill. KEN RUDIN: Tip O'Neill was speaker of the House until he retired in 1986, never ran for president. NEAL CONAN, host: Though he came up with one of the great lines, immortal lines of political... KEN RUDIN: All politicians are loco. KEN RUDIN: Oh, no, I'm sorry: All politics are local. Sorry. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much, Bob. Let's see if we can go next to - let's go to -this is Douglas(ph), another caller from Rochester, though this Rochester is in New York. DOUGLAS (Caller): Yes, in 1932, John Nance Garner competed against Franklin Roosevelt for the Democratic presidential nomination. KEN RUDIN: Well, not only did he compete in 1932, but he also ran in 1940 to stop FDR from a third term. John Nance Garner is the correct answer. NEAL CONAN, host: Ding, ding, ding, ding. Congratulations, Douglas. We're going to put you on hold and collect your particulars, and we'll send you a Political Junkie no-prize T-shirt in return for your promise to send us a digital picture of yourself so we can post it on the Wall of Shame. So thanks very much, congratulations. DOUGLAS (Caller): Okay, thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. In the meantime, Ken, let's get back to politics, and we just mentioned the speaker of the House. The current speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, says she wants to - well, she tweeted that she wants to stay on as minority leader in the next Congress. But there is a battle the Democrats are waging over number two in their caucus. KEN RUDIN: Right, because of course when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, the majority leader was Steny Hoyer, and the majority whip is Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. KEN RUDIN: The Democrats being in the minority now lose that position. So Nancy Pelosi goes from speaker to minority leader, and now it looks like Steny Hoyer, who had been the majority leader... KEN RUDIN: A Democrat of Maryland. KEN RUDIN: A Democrat, and Jim Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, apparently are going to both fight for whip. Now, this is interesting because the Democratic Party has really, in addition to all the serious losses in the House, it has moved noticeably to the left. KEN RUDIN: The Congress is more African-American, more liberal, where a lot of Blue Dog Democrats in the South and in conservative areas were defeated. So there may be a little battle here between Clyburn and Hoyer. KEN RUDIN: They both like each other. Clyburn, of course, as an African-American, would be - and the Congressional Black Caucus, of course, is backing Clyburn in that effort. But it may turn ugly, or it may not. I mean, there may be - Hoyer may become the whip, and Clyburn may be chairman of the DCCC or something like that or caucus chairman, actually would be caucus chairman. KEN RUDIN: But most Democrats feel they want Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn all in the leadership. NEAL CONAN, host: All in the leadership. On the Republican side, Mike Pence has stepped out of the Republican House leadership to maybe run for governor, maybe run for president. Who knows what he's going to do? But in any case, Michele Bachmann, the controversial congresswoman from Minnesota, wants to replace him in the leadership. KEN RUDIN: Well, right. I mean, right now, the top three are set. John Boehner will be speaker. Eric Cantor of Virginia will be majority leader. Kevin McCarthy, kind of new to the leadership, will be the whip. He is the one who recruited many of these successful candidates. KEN RUDIN: But Michele Bachmann and Jeb Hensarling of Texas are expected to run against each other for conference chair. That's the fourth-ranking position in the Republican leadership. NEAL CONAN, host: Congress returns next week for one of two lame-duck weeks. Of course, one of the orders of business is going to be an ethics trial. KEN RUDIN: Yes, that's correct. Charles Rangel, who is accused of 13 counts of violating House rules, he's expected to go on trial as early as Monday the 15th. And as you know, that's two days after my birthday. I just thought I'd throw that in. KEN RUDIN: But the trial is supposed to last several days, and of course, the Democrats are very concerned about what Rangel's going to do because, I mean, after all, it was kind of an embarrassing - Nancy Pelosi promising to drain the swamp of Washington, and you have two ethics trials coming up, both Charles Rangel then Maxine Waters, both Democrats. NEAL CONAN, host: And in the meantime, the former president of the United States has emerged from seclusion right after the election. George W. Bush's new book came out. It's called "Decision Points," and in an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, he described, well, the decision he made about one of the most controversial steps towards the end of his administration: the Wall Street bailouts in 2008. NEAL CONAN, host: President GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm paraphrasing at this point: You'd better do something big because if we don't, you're liable to oversee a depression. NEAL CONAN, host: So the decision point is do you adhere to your philosophy and say let them all fail. Mr. MATT LAUER: Free market. Pres. BUSH: Yeah, free market. Or do you take taxpayers' money and inject it into the system in hopes that you prevent a depression? And I chose the latter. NEAL CONAN, host: And the president, the former president there, taking responsibility for a decision that many pin the blame for on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. KEN RUDIN: But also, a lot of things. I mean, you don't usually see President Bush being so introspective as I've seen in these interviews regarding weapons of mass destruction, whether to pardon Scooter Libby or not, you know, reaction to Katrina. He seemed to be far more introspective than I expected from him. NEAL CONAN, host: Political junkie Ken Rudin will stay with us. You do, too. We're going to be talking about politics in Ohio, which is where we are this week. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan, broadcasting today from the Idea Center at member station WCPN in Cleveland. We've imported the political junkie, Ken Rudin, with us as well. NEAL CONAN, host: This state is often referred to as a bellwether and a perennial swing state. In rapid succession, it swung right, then left, then right again. We want to hear from Ohioans. What does this political volatility tell us about your state and about politics in your state? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Jim Renacci is one of the winners swept in on Ohio's red tide. He won in Ohio's 16th District, beating out Democrat John Boccieri. And he joins us today on the line from Columbus. Jim Renacci, congratulations. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Thank you very much, appreciate it. NEAL CONAN, host: And how tough was it - that's all right. I didn't mean to cut you off there. How tough was this fight? Your opponent won two years ago by 10 points. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, you know what, it was - for me it was 435 days of meeting people, shaking hands and talking about what they're happy with, what they're not happy with. And in the end, we were successful. And I think the key was that people were not happy with the direction that our federal government was going. NEAL CONAN, host: I understand that, and I think that's the verdict in a lot of places around the country and not just in your 16th District but in Ohio broadly, and in much of the country, as well. NEAL CONAN, host: Nevertheless, do you look at the landscape and say, whoop, right, then left, then right again, what do I have to do to make sure I'm in the right place two years from now? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I think the answer is we got to - you know, when you're elected to serve, you have to represent your constituents. And clearly, my opponent did not do that. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): I mean, two major votes he cast, of course, were health care, you know, he voted against it first and then voted for it; and then cap and trade. And both of those, every time I ran into people in the small business community, in the - you know, at any of the functions we had, they kept bringing up those two major votes, which clearly were not taken very well in the 16th District. NEAL CONAN, host: And those were the two key issues, you think? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I think spending, jobs. Let's face it, this district, the unemployment rate has almost doubled in the last two years. Spending's out of control. But when you talk about votes, those two votes continually came up in conversation. NEAL CONAN, host: If unemployment is still around nine and a half, 10 percent, two years from now, do you think you're going to be in trouble? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I think what we need to do is we need to start making sure that we take - bring certainty and predictability back to the marketplace so that businesses can grow. And we need to get banking - you know, right now, the banking regulations are so tight. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): I just met with a number of bankers in Columbus, and they're saying the same thing. They can't lend out money. They're actually calling loans on very strong businesses that, you know, have lived through this recession, but because of banking regulations now, their loans are not - you know, they're not strong anymore. And we've got to be able to turn the tide and turn it in a different direction. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: The polls leading up to the election showed that the Republicans were faring just as poorly as Democrats. And some people are saying that the results from last Tuesday were less an affirmation of Republican principles and more of a rejection of Democratic politics. Do you agree with that? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I'll tell you, since the Republicans in many - you know, when the Republicans had control, they did some things that people are not happy with, and then the Democrats took control, and they did some things even worse that people are not happy with. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): I think we need to start looking at our future, as all Americans, and start making things right and the future right. And ultimately, you're right, people are not happy with the direction the country's going, but they're not happy with the way the Republicans, when they were in control, did it. And now they're definitely not happy with the Democrats. NEAL CONAN, host: You mentioned at the beginning of your remarks that you spent 385 days shaking hands, going around your district, meeting people and finding out what their concerns were. How much of your time between now and November 2012 are you going to be spending in your district, continuing to find out what they want and what they need, because once you're in Washington most of the time, they gets difficult? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, one of the things I've said all along, I've been a businessman for 27 years. I always wanted to make sure I knew what my customers' and clients' concerns were. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): When I was the mayor of Wadsworth, I did the same thing. I think you have to make sure that you're listening. And even though I'm in Washington, I have said that I want to build a strong opportunity to listen, even being in Washington. And we can do that. We can do it with the technology we have. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): But I have to be able to hear what they have to say. And as I told them: We may not agree 100 percent of the time, but if we don't agree, at least I want them to understand the differences and maybe the reasons why I don't agree or they don't agree with me. And that's what will make us stronger together. NEAL CONAN, host: So you expect to be back in Canton every weekend, at least? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): I am going to commute, so absolutely I'm going to get back into the district every week. NEAL CONAN, host: And as you look ahead to the future, I wonder: Your party is now in the majority in the House of Representatives, but the Democrats still have a majority, a much slenderer one but a majority in the United States Senate. Of course, President Obama is still in the White House. NEAL CONAN, host: What do you think you can get done? Is this going to be two years of saying no to the Democrats and the president, or are you going to be proposing ideas that you want enacted, areas where you think you can find cooperation at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I think the answer is, you know, for myself, we're going to - I would always say no if it affected my district the wrong way. And I think that's the key. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): It's - no is just not against the Democratic idea. No is because it's the will of the people who do not want certain things passed or certain legislation passed. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): So I think there will always be no votes when it affects my district, and ultimately, we have to be able to bring things forward so that the country moves forward in the right direction over the next two years and even longer because I'm a forward-thinking person. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): We have to be able to make sure that the policies we enact allow our economy to grow, allow jobs to come back to Ohio. And we're going to continue to work real hard at that. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: One of the reasons that Congressman Boccieri lost is said to be his vote in favor of the health care overhaul. And many Republicans ran against that. KEN RUDIN: Given the fact, as Neal just said, that the Democrats still control the Senate, there's still a Democrat in the White House, and there's unlikely to be a veto override, a successful veto override, does it make sense for the Republicans to push for a repeal of health care? Is it just a sop to the base, or is it a legitimate attempt to change the dynamic about health care? Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Well, I can tell you as I traveled the district the last 435 days, health care came up a tremendous amount of times. People are not happy with the bill. There were some good things in there that we need to take a look at, like pre-existing conditions and caps on illnesses. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): But quite frankly, 85 percent of the problems in our health care today is cost. And that bill is driving costs up. I've talked to business owners where increases are as high as 68 percent in their premiums, and we cannot have a job-killing bill. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): I've said many times, the six pages in that bill were very good; 1,994 pages were toxic. And we need to be able to repeal it and replace it with good legislation that not only takes care of the safety net but brings costs down. NEAL CONAN, host: Congressman-elect Renacci, again congratulations, and thanks very much for being with us. We hope you'll join us again sometime. Mr. JIM RENACCI (Representative-elect, Republican, Ohio): Thank you very much. I appreciate it. NEAL CONAN, host: Jim Renacci, the congressman-elect in Ohio's 16th District. And joining us now on the phone from his office here in Cleveland is Thomas Suddes, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. And nice to have you with us today. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. NEAL CONAN, host: And you've had a complete tide sweep out the Democrats in almost everywhere in the state of Ohio, certainly on the statewide level. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Yes, that's correct. It's a very, very strong showing by the Republican organization, in every statewide elected executive office and obviously the U.S. Senate race, and Republicans, of course, reclaimed or claimed five of our 18 congressional seats. NEAL CONAN, host: And two years ago, just two years ago, the Democrats in this state were jubilant. They had overthrown decades of Republican control and saying a new era had begun. What happened? Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): The new era did not turn out to be as congenial to the average Ohioan, I gather, as maybe people suspected it to be. We are in an economic difficulty. Our unemployment rate, which is not as bad as it's been, it's 10.1 percent, that's higher than the nation's rate. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): We now have about 19 percent of our population on the Medicaid caseload, and it's been growing at the order of something like 13,000 or 14,000 a month was the July to August growth in Medicaid caseload. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): And so we're talking about a very difficult environment for the average person, I think. NEAL CONAN, host: And it was all jobs, jobs, jobs? Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): That was the tenor of the campaign. Yes, it was all jobs, jobs, jobs. A difficult thing because officeholders of both parties like to claim success when things are successful, and when the economy's not so good, it's always someone else's fault somehow, and it doesn't seem to take - the voters don't take that too seriously that way, I don't believe. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: Tom, I was just going to ask you a follow-up on that. Governor Strickland, it seemed like from the beginning, was talking about what a lot of - what President Obama said, that he and the Democrats inherited these problems. But when voters went to vote on Election Day, they looked at who was in power and they saw Democrats, and they voted against the Democrats. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Well, I think that's probably true. I can only speak to Ohio specifically, though, about that, and I think that it gets - well, it doesn't get overlooked, but people sometimes forget that this is a very closely divided state. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): It's certainly true the president carried the state handily when he ran. He had a 260,000-vote margin, I believe, but he was the first Democrat to carry the state and win more than 50 percent of the vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. This is a very competitive environment in this state, and it's a state in which historically Republicans enjoy at least something of an advantage historically. And that explains part of the Ohio story. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): And the other thing is that, in all fairness to the incumbent governor, Governor Strickland, he won four years ago by a very substantial margin on the order of more than 900,000 votes, I believe, but he's won it against a very, very, very weak Republican opponent, and that's why you see a kind of change in - part of the reason for the contrast between today and four years ago. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Tom Suddes, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. We want to hear from voters in Ohio. How do you explain the right-left-right march in your state? What does it say about the state and about politics in your state? We'll begin with Tom(ph) and Tom with us from Circleville in Ohio. TOM (Caller): Hi. Thank you for letting me on your show to talk. Many times I've tried to call and couldn't get through because everybody else is calling. But, yeah, I love your program. NEAL CONAN, host: Thank you. TOM (Caller): I think they let the foxes into the henhouse. We've got a governor who's going to - he's already told us that he's going to bring his cronies in from Wall Street to help him make all the decisions and everything that he needs to make, you know, on how to turn this state around. We have no idea what he's going to pay them. He's already talked about giving them bonuses and everything else. You know, the Republicans, all they care about are the people with the money. They do not care about the working man and... NEAL CONAN, host: We'll take that as a caller who did not vote for the Republican red tide. TOM (Caller): No. NEAL CONAN, host: But, Tom... TOM (Caller): I did not vote for the Republican red tide... NEAL CONAN, host: Tom Suddes... TOM (Caller): ...no. I vote Democrat... NEAL CONAN, host: ...did... TOM (Caller): I'm sorry. Go ahead. NEAL CONAN, host: I just wanted to ask Tom Suddes to respond to your remarks. As you look ahead to the future, of course, John Kasich, after he left Congress and before being elected governor, did work on Wall Street. But is he bringing his cronies in, as our caller suggests? Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Well, look, every politician brings his or her allies and not his or her opponents to work. Otherwise, they program themselves for failure, but I think the remarkable story of this election - in Ohio, anyway - is that - and I don't disagree with the concerns the caller has, and one should always be asking questions about those things. We had a circumstance in this state in which we elected a U.S. senator, a new U.S. senator who was in George Bush -the second George Bush's Cabinet as a budget director and as foreign trade representative... NEAL CONAN, host: Rob Portman. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Mr. Kasich worked on - worked for Lehman Brothers, didn't work on Wall Street per se. And I think - so we have to ask ourselves - well, voters knew that and did what they did. And maybe it was a question of the status quo as they saw it being unacceptable and almost any alternative being better than the status quo - doesn't make it right. I think that's what maybe happened. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. TOM (Caller): Well... NEAL CONAN, host: Tom, thanks very much for the phone call. We're talking with Tom Suddes, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: Tom, you know, there's a lot of concern about a lot of focus on the Tea Party, the Tea Party candidates, and Tea Party candidates did very well in Ohio as well as they did elsewhere. But Rob Portman, the guy who was elected to the Senate, is not a Tea Party person. He has shown that he can work with Democrats. He can be bipartisan, work across the aisle. First of all, what role do you see for Rob Portman in a more conservative Senate, even though it's a Democratic-controlled Senate? Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Well, I think one strong possibility - first of all, leave talking ahead a little bit, as a given that Ohio was seen as crucial to the presidential forces of either party, I suspect that Senator-elect Portman may be a very strong candidate for a running mate for somebody. I don't know that. That's just a suspicion on my part. No one said that to me, but I think that may be crossing the minds of some Republican operatives. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): I think that given the fact that he has had time in the United States House and been a Cabinet-level officer, I suspect that he will be in a position to deal well with what's going to be a very fractious, I think, Senate - maybe even more fractious than it's been up to now. I don't think he's an absolutist on many issues. And, of course, his campaign was predicated, as were the other campaigns statewide, on jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. So I think it - looking at economic issues in that perspective, and that would make him probably someone who would want to work on some level, I think, with President Obama's administration. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's get another caller in. This is Steve(ph). Steve with us from Oxford, Ohio. STEVE (Caller): Yes. I'm calling because I think that there is a message in the results of the election for attorney general in Ohio. And the facts are that at one point Richard Cordray, who was endorsed by every single newspaper that I can think of in Ohio, was up by six points not long before the election and who lost by a devastating margin. And I think the message there is simply that people were not actually reading or evaluating the merits of the candidate, in this particular case especially, but they were simply voting out of their anger and not actually paying attention to what the candidates offered in many cases. Richard Cordray, one of the most outstanding attorney generals Ohio has ever had, so the fact is that people were not really evaluating. They were simply reacting out of their gut. NEAL CONAN, host: Tom Suddes, would you disagree? Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): I wouldn't disagree in a sense that I think all down-ticket races in a state that elects as many people as we elect - five or six statewide executive officers. The governorship result often helps determine the down-ticket results. And particularly in the attorney general's race, the margin - and this is from memory right now - the margin that the attorney general had over his opponent was not much different than the margin between Governor-elect Kasich and Governor Strickland. One other important point: you asked about the Tea Party earlier, the Republican who won the attorney generalship by defeating Attorney General Cordray is former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine. And Mike DeWine is not someone who is, you know, is not beloved by the Tea Party people. He was seen by some people as a Republican in name only because he was insufficiently hard right, again, to some people, and yet he won anyway. One other important point: So I think there's truth in what the caller says, that there was an overall backlash, but I also think that it's remarkable that if the Tea Party was a significant factor, it seems to me that former Senator DeWine might not have won that race against Attorney General Cordray. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay. Steve, thanks very much for the call. STEVE (Caller): All right. NEAL CONAN, host: And, Tom Suddes, there is - getting back to the governor, Mr. Kasich now inherits a deficit between 4 and $8 billion. He will not be raising taxes, I don't believe. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): I don't - first of all, I think at the risk of making a bigger fool of myself and I do oftentimes in print, I think probably the amount of the financial problem is worse than $8 billion. I don't know how much worse, but I think it's more than just a smidgen. I think it may be several billion dollars worse than that. That's number one. Mr. THOMAS SUDDES (Columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer): Number two, it is certainly true that he has said he will not raise taxes and -but that does not include the possibility of him and other Republican Ohio leaders asking the voters if they will do this or not do this. We do have initiative and referendum in our state constitution. And there are a myriad ways in which one could say, well, the voters are the sovereigns in our state, and if they decide to do this, they decide to do this. That I think is one way around that difficulty. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for your time. Thomas Suddes, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Our thanks also to political junkie Ken Rudin who joined us here in Cleveland, Ohio. We'll be back with more in just a moment.

Neal Conan and Ken Rudin look at the deeply purple state of Ohio, where Republicans not only took five congressional seats, but every statewide office including the governor's mansion. Jim Renacci, who beat out Democrat John Boccieri in Ohio's 16th district, talks about his win and his plans. Ken Rudin, political editor, NPR Jim Renacci, congressman-elect in Ohio's 16th district Thomas Suddes, columnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Neal Conan und Ken Rudin werfen einen Blick auf den zutiefst violetten Bundesstaat Ohio, in dem die Republikaner nicht nur fünf Sitze im Kongress, sondern auch alle landesweiten Ämter, einschließlich des Gouverneursamtes, gewonnen haben. Jim Renacci, der sich im 16. Bezirk von Ohio gegen den Demokraten John Boccieri durchsetzte, spricht über seinen Sieg und seine Pläne. Ken Rudin, politischer Redakteur, NPR\nJim Renacci, gewählter Kongressabgeordneter im 16. Bezirk von Ohio\nThomas Suddes, Kolumnist, Cleveland Plain Dealer

尼尔·柯南和肯·鲁丁来看了看深紫色的俄亥俄州，共和党人在这里不仅占据了5个国会席位，还占据了包括州长官邸在内的州级办公室。吉姆·雷纳奇在俄亥俄州第16选区击败了民主党人约翰·波切里，他谈论了他的胜利和他的计划。肯·鲁丁，政治编辑、美国全国公共广播电台新闻吉姆·雷纳奇、俄亥俄州第16选区当选国会议员托马斯·苏德斯,专栏作家，克利夫兰老实人报。

DEBORAH AMOS, host: The all-night debate is over, but the congressional deadlock over Iraq policy goes on. The Senate couldn't get enough votes today to consider a measure that would begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in four months. A small majority of the Senate supported consideration of the measure. Fifty-two senators voted aye, but 60 votes were needed. The outcome was not unexpected, but the long hours of debate were still intense and often impassioned. Senator JOHN McCAIN (Republican, Arizona): Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have change any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. Unidentified Man: The Levin amendment is not a credible alternative to the current strategy. Senator HARRY REID (Democrat, Nevada): The American public is opposed to the surge. They're opposed to the war. They want our valiant troops to come home. DEBORAH AMOS, host: Joining us now is NPR's congressional correspondent David Welna. Welcome to the program. DAVID WELNA: Hi, Deborah. DEBORAH AMOS, host: David, what made this vote today, except for the part where they were up all night, different from debates over the last several months and years? DAVID WELNA: Well, I think that there's a sense that this vote is really a vote on where the war in Iraq is going to go, and right now this is was a test of whether there are the votes in the Senate to force President Bush to change his policy in Iraq. That's why many Republicans did not want the amendment that would force troop withdrawals to begin within four months to even come up. DAVID WELNA: That's what the vote was about today. It was about just moving to that amendment, not even voting on the amendment. This was a filibuster. It's the right of the minority to use its minority status to demand 60 votes to go forward. DAVID WELNA: It was a sense of a very historic day and the fact that this amendment will not be taken up I think means that those who want a change in Iraq are probably going to have to wait a little bit longer. DEBORAH AMOS, host: Well, and that is what is now key. We have a majority in the Senate and in the House who do want change, but there's no immediate prospect for that, so why? DAVID WELNA: Well, it's a simple majority. There are a hundred members of the Senate and there were 52 votes to proceed to this troop withdrawal amendment, so if you were simply going by the simple majority, you would have enough senators. DAVID WELNA: But right now I think there are many Republicans with misgivings about Iraq, but they've agreed to stick with President Bush on this until mid-September, when General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who is in Baghdad, come and tell Congress how things are going there. At that point I think you might see a stampede away from the Iraq policy. DEBORAH AMOS, host: So what we haven't talked about is the shadow of the president's veto. You can have a majority, but you need more than a majority. DAVID WELNA: That's right. You need 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. It's not clear, even in September, whether there would be enough Republican departures from the White House to get that 67. But right now it looks like there are only four Republicans who are willing to openly vote against the president at this point. DEBORAH AMOS, host: David, did this debate today, as it has now ended, did it change anything? DAVID WELNA: Well, I think that one thing it really changed was that the defense authorization bill, which they were trying to amend with this troop withdrawal related amendments, has been pulled by Majority Leader Reid, and it's not clear when it will come back on the floor again. So there were other amendments also related to drawing down troops. They're all on ice, as it were for now, but Reid said he's hoping to bring it back and it may not be until September when we see that. DEBORAH AMOS, host: Well, thank you very much. David Welna, who's reporting from Capitol Hill.

As promised, Senate Democrats held a debate on the Iraq war that lasted through Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning. Still, they failed to get enough votes to consider a measure that would have called for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in four months.

Wie versprochen hielten die Demokraten im Senat eine Debatte über den Irak-Krieg, die von Dienstagabend bis Mittwochmorgen dauerte. Dennoch gelang es ihnen nicht, genügend Stimmen für eine Maßnahme zu erhalten, die einen Abzug der US-Truppen aus dem Irak innerhalb von vier Monaten gefordert hätte.

正如所承诺的那样，参议院民主党人就伊拉克战争举行了辩论，辩论一直持续到周二晚上和周三上午。尽管如此，他们还是没有获得足够的选票来考虑实施一项要求美军在四个月内撤出伊拉克的措施。

NOAH ADAMS, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Noah Adams. DEBORAH AMOS, host: And I'm Deborah Amos. DEBORAH AMOS, host: Coming up, an overnight debate on Iraq ends in another Senate stalemate. NOAH ADAMS, host: But first, new information is emerging about this week's earthquake in Japan. The damage may be more severe than we'd heard. The quake hit northwestern Japan on Monday, measuring 6.8 in magnitude. NOAH ADAMS, host: And joining us now with the latest is our DAY TO DAY colleague, Madeleine Brand, who happens to be in that country, working on the series Climate Connections. Madeleine, thank you for joining us. MADELEINE BRAND: Well, you're welcome. Hi, Noah. NOAH ADAMS, host: We knew on Monday, Madeleine, there had been some damage to a huge power plant. It's the world's biggest in terms of - nuclear power plant - in terms of output. And there's more news today - more damage information is coming up? MADELEINE BRAND: Right. They admitted that they erred earlier, when they gave an estimate of how much radioactive water had leaked out of the plant after the earthquake. The plant was damaged quite severely by that earthquake. The electric company said that now the leak into the Sea of Japan is 50 percent bigger than it previously announced. And it also said some 400 barrels of nuclear waste were knocked over inside the plant. MADELEINE BRAND: Now, the plant has been shut down. There's an investigation pending. The company is downplaying all this, saying the leaked amount is still, quote, "one billionth of Japan's legal limit." However, the International Atomic Energy Agency is pressing for a thorough investigation. And Noah, this comes amidst a history of cover-ups of accidents at the nuclear power plants the company operates in Japan. And in fact a group of residents sued the government, saying A) that these accidents had been covered up; and B) the government hadn't conducted sufficient safety reviews when it approved the plant back in the 1970s. Now, that suit was thrown out just two years ago for lack of merit by a Tokyo court. NOAH ADAMS, host: Madeleine, you mentioned the leakage into the Sea of Japan. Where is the plant exactly? MADELEINE BRAND: It's about 135 miles northwest of Tokyo, a town called Kashiwazaki. It's right on the coast. About 93,000 people live there, many of whom actually work at this nuclear power plant. MADELEINE BRAND: And the bigger problem, though, Noah, is that nobody really knows if this power plant is located on a fault line. As you know, Japan is in a very active earthquake area. It straddles four tectonic plates. And the company is saying, well, it's not located exactly on a fault line. It may be near a fault line. But there might be some evidence now, looking into the aftershocks of this latest quake, that in fact this nuclear power plant, as you said earlier, the biggest in the world in terms of output, is located right on a fault line. NOAH ADAMS, host: So the plant is shut down. The cleanup is going on. The investigation is going on. In the meantime, Toyota is shutting down operations all over Japan because one of their suppliers is also in that city? MADELEINE BRAND: This is a supplier that makes pistons and camshafts. Japanese automakers - all of them, including Toyota - have halted some production because this production plant has been shut down. This is a very strong quake - 6.8 magnitude. There was a lot of damage in that area. Of course Toyota has supplies to last it several days, so it's not - it probably won't affect production right now, but who knows in the future? MADELEINE BRAND: Let me just say one more thing. As you know, we're here doing a series on global warming, our series Climate Connections, as you mentioned in the intro. And it's interesting: part of the research that we're uncovering is that the government just recently announced this new initiative called Cool Earth 50, where they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050. MADELEINE BRAND: And part of this plan is relying on nuclear power, because obviously that doesn't emit carbon. And so there's a very rosy scenario painted by the federal government about new generations of safe, clean nuclear power. Now, I can only imagine that after this problem that's happening with this nuclear power plant, that that will be seriously up for consideration. NOAH ADAMS, host: DAY TO DAY'S Madeleine Brand talking with us from Tokyo. Thank you, Madeleine. MADELEINE BRAND: Thank you, Noah.

New information is coming out about the quake that hit Japan earlier this week. Water leakage into the Sea of Japan from a nuclear power plant is 50 percent more than originally announced, and some 400 barrels of nuclear waste were knocked over. The International Atomic Energy Agency is pressing for a thorough investigation.

Es gibt neue Informationen über das Erdbeben, das Japan Anfang der Woche erschüttert hat. Aus einem Kernkraftwerk ist 50 % mehr Wasser in das Japanische Meer ausgetreten als ursprünglich gemeldet, und etwa 400 Fässer mit Atommüll sind umgekippt. Die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde drängt auf eine gründliche Untersuchung.

关于本周早些时候侵袭日本的地震的新消息释出。一家核电站泄漏到日本海的水比最初宣称的多50%，大约400桶核废料被打翻。国际原子能机构正敦促进行彻底调查。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: China and the United States are resuming trade talks this week in Washington. This is even as a fresh round of tariffs on each other's goods is set to take effect tomorrow. We're going to have the latest now from NPR's Rob Schmitz in Shanghai. ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: The U.S. is set to impose tariffs on $16 billion dollars' worth of Chinese products ranging from motorcycles to railway cars while the Chinese will respond with tariffs on an equal amount of U.S. goods. That will include coal, medical instruments and cars. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told reporters yesterday China was upbeat about today's talks in Washington, but he didn't make any promises. LU KANG: (Through interpreter) We certainly hope the talks could lead to good outcomes, but one thing you should know is that we prefer no unnecessary prejudgments and predictions. ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: President Trump was also reluctant to express much optimism at a campaign rally in West Virginia yesterday. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have people coming to me, some people in Congress - sir, can you get this deal done immediately? I said, it doesn't work that way. I don't want to go too fast. The deal's not going to be any good if we do that. ROB SCHMITZ, BYLINE: The U.S. is holding hearings this week about additional tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports that could go into effect as early as September 6. China has vowed to retaliate with tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods. An escalating trade war will cast a new light on events this autumn, where President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping may have a chance to negotiate a deal such as an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November, as well as a G-20 meeting in Argentina. Later that month. Rob Schmitz, NPR News, Shanghai.

New U.S. tariffs on China are set to go into effect Thursday on $16 billion worth of Chinese goods. Beijing is expected to respond immediately with tariffs on the same amount of U.S. products.

Am Donnerstag sollen neue US-Zölle gegen China auf chinesische Waren im Wert von 16 Milliarden US-Dollar in Kraft treten. Peking wird voraussichtlich sofort mit Zöllen auf die gleiche Menge an US-Produkten reagieren.

美国将于周四对价值160亿美元的中国商品征收新的关税。预计北京将立即对同等数量的美国产品征收关税。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The midterm elections are just five weeks away, so now we want to consider how the drama surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination could influence those midterms. We called David Axelrod and Mary Kate Cary for that. Mary Kate Cary was a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. She's now a senior fellow at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. David Axelrod was a campaign strategist and White House adviser to President Barack Obama. Now he's director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thank you both so much for being with us today. DAVID AXELROD: Great to be here. MARY KATE CARY: Thanks for having us. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let me start with one of the issues that people are already familiar with, which is the intensity question. Polls have been showing that Democrats are more energized about voting in the midterms. And this is important because, in the past, Democrats have not been as likely to vote. So do you think that the Kavanaugh hearings will change the momentum? So, David Axelrod, why don't you take that first? DAVID AXELROD: Well, it's hard to say. I think the Republicans made a decision to kind of tribalize the fight in a way that has probably spurred some engagement on the part of the base. And that will favor Republicans trying to unseat Democrats in some of these red states that Trump won in 2016. On the other hand, I think you're also going to see further galvanization of voters in these suburban House districts, including many women, where there's already a historic gender gap. So you might actually see a bifurcated effect with the house going one way and the Senate going another. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Mary Kate, what do you think? MARY KATE CARY: I think it's still too early to tell because I think things are going to change based on the results of the FBI investigation. You know, there is this conventional wisdom that there's going to be a blue wave, but I'm not so sure I buy into it because I don't really trust the polling right now because I think there's a lot of people who are understandably afraid to say what they think, especially in terms of expressing support for either Trump or Kavanaugh to a pollster. To me, the fact that the most-watched television network during the hearings was Fox News - that tells me more than the polls tell me. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, you know, there is some polling out - I'll just tell you what it is, although even the pollsters are saying that there's a lot of noise right now, just as both of you are saying. But, according to the Pew Research Center, large majorities of both parties said appointments to the Supreme Court will be very important to their votes this fall. And that's interesting because, in the past, the court has been a bigger issue for Republicans. But this latest polling found that it's now more important for Democrats. Eighty-one percent of Democrats listed the court as a big factor in their vote. And so, Mary Kate, what do you think that means? MARY KATE CARY: I think that's right. I think there were a tremendous number of Republicans, many of whom I knew (laughter), who voted for Trump simply because of the Supreme Court - for the Scalia seat. What I don't think they anticipated was Kennedy's seat going up as well. And that, too - I think the left is a much more pivotal seat because that's the swing vote in their minds. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: David Axelrod, what do you think? DAVID AXELROD: Well, look - I think that there's no doubt that this has galvanized Democrats, who are still raw from the experience of Merrick Garland. But I think that, at the end of the day, two things. One is I quite agree that we won't know the effect of this until we know how the story ends - if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. But it's also possible that an election that happens a month after this vote is likely - is going to turn on other issues, and this will recede. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So much - it just seems like there was so much emotional pingponging (ph) over just the course of a couple of days. But then, at the end of the week, you know, which was so angry and so polarizing, there was this glimmer of bipartisanship when Jeff Flake - Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, called for this FBI investigation. And I just wanted to ask each of you, how do you think that is being received? Maybe - Mary Kate, do you want to go first on that? MARY KATE CARY: Yeah. I think the FBI investigation should have been called for a long time ago by either side - by the Democrats, when they first got these allegations in July, and the Republicans as soon as it became public. And, you know, my old boss, President Bush 41, did the same thing. He called for a FBI investigation during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and it set a good precedent. It made him look fair-minded. So I think the FBI investigation will hopefully calm some of the frayed nerves and stop this feeling that there's just this tremendous rush to judgment. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: David Axelrod, on the other hand, though, it's been reported that the White House is circumscribing the scope of the investigation, which is upsetting to some people. DAVID AXELROD: Yes. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So I don't know. What do you think? DAVID AXELROD: First of all, I give credit to President Bush for having involved the FBI when he did. The difference here is that he did that of his own volition. But, you know, my concern is not just that the investigation might be limited. But you heard on the Sunday shows this morning Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and others who were openly disdainful of this FBI investigation and made very, very clear that it is of little moment to them. DAVID AXELROD: And one of the problems, I think, with the hearing on Thursday is that there were no witnesses called. There was no corroborating evidence for anybody. So it had a feeling of a box-checking exercise. And if that is the case with the FBI investigation, I think there are people who are going to be angry about it. But I am sure - you know, this whole issue - like, everything in our deeply divided country has become kind of a Rorschach test for your political views. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, where do we think - this is the last question I have for each of you - where does this leave the country? I mean, either way, this has been a really sort of ugly, painful process. Does it matter whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed or not? I don't know. David Axelrod, why don't you take this first, and I'll give Mary Kate the last word. David? DAVID AXELROD: Well, look. One of my concerns is that all our institutions are under assault and under suspicion. This is the highest court in the country. Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was deeply political. And I'd be the first to say he was under attack, and he wanted to respond. But he chose and the members of that committee chose to respond in a very partisan way. And I think that contributes to a sense of jaundice about our courts, which are supposed to be, to some degree, removed from that kind of politics. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Mary Kate? MARY KATE CARY: I would say I have two hopes for how this ends up. One of the reasons this fight got so big so fast is because of the increasing reliance on the Supreme Court to make decisions about our everyday lives, and that has been because the Congress and the Senate have become so gridlocked and so dysfunctional that we turn more and more to the courts for the results that we want. And I'm hoping this spurs Congress to start fixing that. MARY KATE CARY: And then my second hope is, you know, when you think about our criminal justice system, it's built on the theory that the human mind acts like a camera, and it does not. And I think that's why we see so many cases being exonerated by DNA evidence these days. And, hopefully, this will shine a light on some of the reforms that we could have going forward. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Mary Kate Cary. You can listen to her podcast, "Bipodisan" - you know, get it? Bipartisan? MARY KATE CARY: Get it? MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Speaking of which, David Axelrod is a former Obama campaign strategist, and now he is a senior political commentator on CNN. Thank you both so much for talking with us. DAVID AXELROD: Thank you. MARY KATE CARY: Thanks for having us.

NPR's Michel Martin considers the implications of the Kavanaugh controversy for the midterms and beyond, with Republican commentator Mary Kate Cary and former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod.

Michel Martin von NPR betrachtet die Auswirkungen der Kavanaugh-Kontroverse auf die Zwischenwahlen und darüber hinaus mit der republikanischen Kommentatorin Mary Kate Cary und dem ehemaligen Obama-Wahlkampfstrategen David Axelrod.

NPR新闻的米歇尔·马丁与共和党评论员玛丽·凯特·卡里和前奥巴马竞选策略师大卫·阿克塞尔罗德一起探讨了卡瓦诺事件对中期选举和以后的影响。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do you hear that baseline? JACK BRUCE: (Singing) Born under a bad sign. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is the great Jack Bruce, the bass player for Cream. Bruce died yesterday from liver disease at the age of 71. Cream was a British trio including Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. And although they only played together for a couple of years, they made a lasting impression on the music world. Listen to Cream playing American blues standards like "Cross Road Blues" or "Born Under a Bad Sign," and you hear Jack Bruce's bass line grounding the song and pushing it forward at the same time. He co-wrote some of Cream's biggest hits including "Sunshine Of Your Love" and "I Feel Free." Roger Waters, the great bass player for Pink Floyd said this of Jack Bruce - he was probably the most musically gifted bass player who has ever been. JACK BRUCE: (Singing) It's getting dawn. The lights close their tired eyes. I'll soon be with you, my love, to give you my dawn surprise. I'll be with you, darling, soon.

The rock bass player Jack Bruce has passed away at age 71. The Scottish musician was best known for his work with the 1960s band Cream, one of the greatest rock trios of all time.

Der Rockbassist Jack Bruce ist im Alter von 71 Jahren verstorben. Der schottische Musiker war vor allem durch seine Arbeit mit der Band Cream aus den 1960er Jahren bekannt, einem der größten Rocktrios aller Zeiten.

摇滚贝斯手杰克·布鲁斯离世，享年71岁。这位苏格兰音乐家最著名的作品是与1960年代最伟大的摇滚三重奏乐队之一Cream乐队的合作。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The debate over climate change in this country has dramatically shifted over the years. The question is no longer whether climate change exists, but rather what can be done to slow its effects? And the U.S. Department of Defense is asking the same question. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This past week, the Pentagon released a report saying that rising temperatures pose an immediate threat to national security, and it outlined a plan to the crisis. Retired Admiral David Titley led Navy's task force on climate change. And he told us food, water and energy insecurity could all cause or worsen crises that might require a response from the U.S. military and, in many cases, already has. ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: Let's roll ourselves back to just before the Arab Spring. There were massive droughts in Russia, in Australia and Pakistan. And it's, like, well, those are - you know, who cares? Well, the reason we cared is those are all big wheat growing regions. So the worldwide wheat harvest was pretty significantly impacted. ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: So now, in addition to all the other stresses of - I would argue not-so-great governance, existing tensions and strife - now you throw in a very rapid rise in the very basic foodstuff, and boom, it's sort of like throwing a match into a gasoline vapors. And then we got the Arab Spring. So while I don't think anybody claims that climate change caused the Arab Spring, there's a lot of research that shows that it was probably one of the contributing factors. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But how would the military respond? I mean, when there's a military, national security threat like terrorism or like an insurgency, the U.S. military trains to then go meet that threat. What do you propose that the U.S. military be doing to combat climate change? Is there anything from a tactical level that can be done? ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: Sure. So from a tactical level, if, you know, you look at one of the places in the world that is changing faster than any other place else, it's the Arctic. So how does the U.S. military get ready to operate in the Arctic? Do we have the right kinds of ships? Do we have our sailors trained? Have they gone up there before? Do they actually understand, you know, how little infrastructure there is - the kinds of weather and sea and ice conditions that they're going to see? Do we have the... RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can you make the connection? Can you make the connection for me? Why would the U.S. military have to open up that front? Why would they be working in the Arctic? ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: They'd be working in the arctic because we've already seen a fivefold increase in the number of ships going through the Bering Strait. And the Bering Strait of course is that strategic piece of water between Alaska and Russia that connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean. Oil and gas, I think many people know that some of the last greatest reserves of oil and gas are up in the Arctic. We can argue about whether it's right for us to take that out of the Arctic or not, but the fact is, is that's where it is. And right now, the big oil and gas companies are up there. ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: Tourism is growing rapidly and not just, you know, one or two people on a kayak, but these big, big cruise ships with thousands of people. So the Arctic is becoming - whether the military wants it or not - more and more like other oceans. So if the Navy and the Coast Guard are not ready to work up there, that becomes a problem. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And lastly, just the sense of urgency - the Department of Defense has been talking about climate change for a while now and raising the warning that there could be implications for national security. But this report is different in that it suggests an immediate threat. Is there anything in this report that's going to trigger immediate change as a result? ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: That's always a good question, Rachel, when you're talking about the Department of Defense in a report is that - is anything going to be an immediate change. I think this is a great marker along the road to being really climate ready. But now I would say from being outside the Defense Department, that the hard work begins. How do you find those scarce dollars - those tough dollars to find not only to do the assessments, but then to do what the assessment tells you, you need to do? So I look at this as just a mile post - an important milepost that the Department of Defense has put out. But it's by no means the end of the journey. And climate and this future threat will have to compete with every other near-term threat that the department has to face. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Retired Rear Admiral Titley talking to us about the Pentagon's new report on climate change as a national security threat. Admiral Titley, thanks so much for your time. ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY: OK, thanks very much, Rachel.

The Department of Defense says climate change is an "immediate risk" to the nation. Adm. David Titley talks with NPR's Rachel Martin about how the military must respond.

Das Verteidigungsministerium sagt, der Klimawandel sei ein \"unmittelbares Risiko\" für das Land. Admiral David Titley spricht mit Rachel Martin von NPR darüber, wie das Militär reagieren muss.

美国国防部表示，气候变化是美国面临的“直接风险”。美国海军上将戴维·蒂特利与NPR的雷切尔·马丁讨论了军方必须如何应对。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. On today's Roundtable, the pope tries again to make amends with the Muslim community and New Orleans reopens its Superdome with fanfare. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joining us today from our New York bureau is Michael Meyers, executive director for the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times columnist, is in our Chicago bureau. And from NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., Yvonne Bynoe is author of the book Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and Hip-Hop Culture. Thank you all for joining us and let's go straight to the Superdome. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's been more than a year, but football came back last night to the Superdome in New Orleans. There was lots of hoopla, including performances by musicians like Green Day and U2, who paid tribute to the city's musical heritage in their own ways. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Mr. PAUL HEWSON (As Bono; Musician, U2) (Singing) You're beautiful. It's a beautiful day (unintelligible) you're beautiful. Allen Toussaint. You're beautiful. Aaron Neville… FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. So there you have U2, which happens personally to be one of my favorite concert bands, playing a tribute to Fats Domino, Aaron Neville, other New Orleans musicians who weren't playing. What's up with that, Yvonne? Like why weren't they - I mean, you know, New Orleans has more musicians per capita than probably any city in the world, so why did they have to import people? I mean it's not no disrespect to U2, but it's just like that's kind of weird. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Yeah. Actually it's kind of weird and I think it speaks to the whole half-and-half situation of this kind of celebration. Certainly, you want to bring attention to New Orleans, you want to celebrate the fact that you can get thousands of people there and at least for that weekend help with the economy. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): But it's a short-lived situation. Until they can get some sustained improvement to the infrastructure, having a football game, you know, once or twice a month is not going to be enough to cut it. So I think it kind of speaks - U2, as wonderful as they are - I would be in agreement that there were plenty of people who could have foot the bill, rather been on the bill. But I wonder whether the incentive was to have a - to cater to the people who they thought were going to be in the Superdome as opposed to the people who actually are still living in New Orleans or were part of the original New Orleans structure. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): And I think that's the question on the table: What is New Orleans going to look like? Is it going to look like what it was in the past with the jazz and the French Quarter and such, or is it become a new entity which, you know, may or may not resemble its past glory? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Michael and Laura, before I get to you, I have just another little bit of tape to play. This is something that a commentator for Monday Night Football had to say, just sort of bubbling over with enthusiasm. Mr. MIKE TIRICO (Commentator, Monday Night Football): What a pleasure it is to welcome all of your back inside the Louisiana Superdome. Hi, I'm Mike Tirico. Welcome to Monday Night Football. The last time that thousands gathered here, their mission was survival. Well, 56 weeks after Hurricane Katrina, everything's changed about New Orleans, but as thousands gather... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Everything's changed about New Orleans. Has it, Michael? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Well, Farai, you too can be a believer in eclectic music. But I think the question is not what New Orleans is going to look like but what does New Orleans look like right now? I think it's a city that has always been poor; it's a city that has always had the poor in the background. Even when people went to the French Quarter, you had the poor shining shoes and dancing in the French Quarter. I guess that's sort of eclectic taste in music. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But, you know, you have to rebuild New Orleans. You've got to start someplace. So with insurance money, with bond dollars, with FEMA money they renovated the Superdome and reopened it. I think that's okay because you need economic revival, you need cultural revival. You need New Orleans to be again an attraction for tourists and as an entertainment capital of the South, and hopefully you'll bring people back and do something for the people in terms of a new town approach. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): So that you have new housing, economically and racially integrated housing built high. But until then, New Orleanians will not be singing with the crowd When the Saints Come Marching In. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Laura, you know, there's a bunch of new proposals on the table. First of all, there's a set of proposals to really revamp the Ninth Ward, which has been, you know, in some ways slated for destruction in the past. It's like we're going to turn it into an industrial zone, we're going to turn it into a green zone, we're not going to make it a neighborhood. Now it seems that officials are turning around and saying we're going to make this a neighborhood. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But does a celebration like last night - and, you know, personally, I was on the phone with a friend who lives in New Orleans, and she was actually very excited about the Superdome reopening as a sports palace. But kind of where are our priorities on this? Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): Well, I think that the questions of priorities is key here. First of all, last night's event was a global story. I'm sure that game was seen in some ways all the way around the world and it was a very important symbol. But I think some people are troubled by the symbol of the reopening of the Superdome. I think it cost something like $185 million to reopen, and people wonder about if that money isn't being misplaced. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): And if that kind of a spectacle doesn't again tell the story of the “better half” of New Orleans, the wealthy half, the tourism half, the half that was least damaged and has come back quickly. And of course, as Michael pointed out, we do need to have economic development. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But I am afraid that the stories of the folks who are still out there in the areas that really have remained untouched - I was there in June and I know some of the rest of us have been down there too. They don't even do your typical tours anymore in New Orleans. You know, taking you to French Quarter, taking you to historical sites. They do what they call a devastation tour because there are places that just are unbelievable in terms of the devastation, and we haven't really yet addressed that. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But the Superdome is not going to be turned into a museum and it's not going to be turned into a mausoleum. So you have to do something with it; you have to renovate and you have to reopen it. And so, you know, again, as I understand it, it was reopened mostly on insurance money and bond money that could not be used for any other purpose. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): You have to renovate the Ninth Ward too, Michael, and you have to renovate a lot of other areas not just in New Orleans but around New Orleans as well. And I think people wonder where the real priorities are. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): And that's the whole point that you had a wonderful weekend per se, but the people who want to come back who are in Houston, Atlanta and so forth, that's not going to help provide them with affordable housing. That's not going to open up these small mom and pop businesses who have now closed. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): So, again, it was great if you had the hundreds of dollars to buy a ticket or you already had a season ticket to come in there and, you know, regale in the Superdome. But for the average person who was a New Orleans citizen, this probably did very little to improve the day-to-day existence or to help them have the means to come back. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I want to move on to another topic. Actor and philanthropist - and some would say cranky man - Bill Cosby is urging every American to contribute $8 to help build a national slavery museum... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): I thought she was talking about me. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I know I'm going to get in trouble for that - in the battlefields of the Civil War in Virginia. Cosby has committed $1 million of his own money. He's also been very generous, you know, to places like Spelman. The project will cost about $200 million. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now there is a King memorial going up on the Mall in Washington, which is a big deal and there's tons of, you know, millions of dollars being raised for that. There's... Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): African-American Museum... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. There's the African-American Museum, there's the Museum of the African Diaspora in the Bay Area. Bill Cosby, some folks argue, could have said, everybody give $8 to Katrina victims, everybody give $8 to education. What do you make of him, you know, first of all, he's on his moral crusade but then specifically pushing this project. Is there any significance to this? Michael. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): I have no patience for Bill Cosby's brand of negritude. I really don't. And I don't want him lecturing me about how to spend my dollars. He has lots of dollars, much more dollars than I have. So if it's only going to be $200 million, then he should, you know, round up 199 more millionaires to match his million dollars, then they have the $200 million. But it's going to cost more than that operate it. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): I don't know why we need a national slavery museum. But if we need it, those who think we need it, they should pay for it. Don't look to my pockets, don't look for my dollars because there are a lot of demands on my dollars. And a national slavery museum is very low, if at all, on my list of priorities. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Laura, you know, I reeled off a list of different projects that are commemorating the African-American experience. It seems like in some ways we are in a growth phase for museums, monuments. Regardless of whether Bill Cosby is championing one that you particularly like, do you see any kind of significance to all of these new projects happening at once? Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): Well, I think the significance is obviously there's been a growth of black wealth in this country. Cosby is just one symbol of the number, the Oprahs and the Michael Jordans and the number of folks out there that can spearhead these kinds of causes. And I think that's a good thing. That says a lot about the progress we have made. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): I think, you know, Michael's response to the slavery museum as being not a priority for him I think is a typical response that you're going to hear from a lot of folks. And not just the Michael types, but you're going to hear from whites, you're going to hear from blacks from a range of perspectives because a lot of people want to forget about slavery. They want to put it behind us; they want to move on. And if we're going to talk about it, let's talk about reparations. I think that's the perspective that you're going to hear out there. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): The other issue is, you know, we are, you have - we have to remember we are a very generous country. You know, as Cosby says, you know, he thinks this is going to be a tough one. Well, it wasn't as tough one for - you saw lot of outpouring in terms of aid for 9/11. You saw the outpouring in terms of aid for Katrina, in terms of tsunami. Regular folks are willing to dig into their pockets and help folks in need. But again, as you said, I'd like to see that $8 per person go to those folks who're trying to get back to New Orleans from places around the country who don't even have the car fare to get back. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yvonne, is there any kind of generational spin on this, because a lot of these new monuments and memorials and museums are reaching back in time, which is very important. Is that something that's going to help connect, say, the hip-hop generation to the civil rights generation, or is it something that younger people are just going to tune out of? Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): I don't think it's going to have any significant impact on bridging the generational divide. I think that we're looking at a lot of different projects. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): It was the Reginald Lewis Museum that is now in Baltimore. Reginald Lewis himself left I believe $5 million, and that project cost $48 million or thereabouts to put into place. I think as you mentioned earlier, the Martin Luther King monument or museum on the Mall, they've been trying to raise money for that forever. And now here's another one. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): I think for me personally this is less about whether or not this is a priority in my own life and it's more about where are the people with money? If we feel these are priorities, if the Bill Cosbys and the so forth, all these other people, want to have these things, then I think they need to ante up and stop asking to a certain degree, not necessarily look to the rest of us to put these things into place. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Baltimore was very instrumental with the Reginald Lewis Museum. I think that the places and the cities that want to participate and help to finance these things, as well as the people who want to finance them, I think that's what we need to be looking at. But rather than some entity in Lone Ranger kind of mode saying we need to do this, and then they don't have the money or the resources to raise the funds. I think it's kind of outlandish. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): So I think certainly we need to look at the past. We need to examine it. I'm not opposed to even having something that talks about slavery. But it needs to be in a 21st century context too; not just to bring in the Bill Cosby era but it does have to bring in too a new era of people so they can have a greater understanding. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Museum going is, you know, not as its height. I mean cultural entities in general are, you know, are not doing well. So I think... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Just wait until we get old and we get old and we get our hip-hop museum. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Well, I'm not... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: By that time people will say we're totally irrelevant. But I want to move on... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): And you will pay for it. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Yeah, and that's the point. That everybody who's championing these things should be ready to write a check for them as well. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But who will... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But who will look... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We've got to move on. One more speed round topic. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): Okay. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Back to the pope and Muslim community. Pope Benedict XVI addressed Muslim diplomats yesterday, maintaining that our future depends on good relations between followers of both faiths. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: One Italian-Muslim representative, Kahlil Altubat(ph), told reporters he felt the pope was sincere. Mr. KAHLIL ALTUBAT (Italian-Muslim Representative): He is working to resolve the problems between the Vatican and Muslims in this moment. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So you've got one Muslim leader saying, all right, the pope is doing the right thing. My question, and we've got to proceed fairly quickly, is is it too late for the people who may not be moderate Muslims but the people who may be more extremist and will probably stay pissed off? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): The people who are more extremists are not going to accept any apology. I don't understand why the apology was offered. If no offense was intended, and no offense was in the statement, why apologize? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): For me, the issue is free speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state. The pope should have said something about the situation in Indonesia, where three Catholics were executed. He could and should have said something about Saudi Arabia, where I understand Christians cannot even practice their faith. Why shouldn't the pope be able to speak about these issues? That's what his job is. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But, Michael, the issue is that he's singling out this particular faith and saying and implying that it is founded or is steeped in violence. And he doesn't speak - he hasn't spoken out on a lot of other issues like this, as you point out. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): Another one of the representatives who was there from the Muslim community had a different opinion. He said he felt that the conversation was not a dialogue but a monologue. Basically, the pope brought them all together, gave them all a little speech, shook hands and left. And so I think there's some deep level still of dissatisfaction, that he still really doesn't get it. He's going to Turkey in a couple of months and it'll be interesting... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Yes. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): ...to see, since Turkey was one of the most violently opposed to his comments. It'll be interesting to see how he's received there. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): I don't think the pope will... Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Well... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): ...ever get an alternative religion. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): Well also too, I think... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yvonne. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): ...but I think the broader question really has to do with the concept of free speech. Certainly people, you know, bash Christianity. And the Christians who want to support that, you know, they have a dialogue back and forth; sometimes rancorous, sometimes more civil. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Absolutely. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): But I think with Islam, the extremists, I don't think there's anything that you're going to have a dialogue on. I think if you make any criticism, however slight, they're going to be up in arms. And we've seen that happening. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): So whether or not the pope should have apologized I think is kind of beside the point. I think for these extremist elements of Islam it's that you can say nothing that they decide or perceive as to be critical. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): That's right. Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): And I think that... Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But... Ms. YVONNE BYNOE (Author, Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership and the Hip-Hop Culture): ... I think that's the biggest issue on the table in terms of a world dialogue in different religions and cultures being able to work with each other. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right, we're going to have to... Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): But that's a... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We're going to have to leave it there. I'm sorry. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So we've been talking in Washington, D.C., to Yvonne Bynoe, author of the book Stand and Deliver: Political Activism, Leadership, and Hip-Hop Culture. Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times columnist, is in Chicago. And in New York, Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Thank you all for joining us. Ms. LAURA WASHINGTON (Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times): Thank you. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Thank you, Farai. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Next on NEWS & NOTES, the Continental Basketball Association isn't as well known as the NBA, but one team owner has a plan: combine hoops with hip-hop to fill arenas. And soprano Jessye Norman brings opera to a new generation. Ms. JESSYE NORMAN (Opera Singer): (Singing) (Foreign language spoken) FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You're listening to NEWS & NOTES from NPR News.

Guests discuss the return of football in the New Orleans' Superdome and why Bill Cosby is asking every American to donate $8 to a museum on slavery. Joining host Farai Chideya: Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition; Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times columnist, and author Yvonne Bynoe.

Die Gäste diskutieren über die Rückkehr des Fußballs in den Superdome von New Orleans und darüber, warum Bill Cosby jeden Amerikaner bittet, 8 Dollar für ein Museum über Sklaverei zu spenden. Zu Gast bei Farai Chideya: Michael Meyers, Geschäftsanführer der New Yorker Bürgerrechtskoalition, Laura Washington, Kolumnistin der Chicago Sun-Times, und die Autorin Yvonne Bynoe.

嘉宾们讨论了在新奥尔良的超级穹顶谈论足球的回归，以及为什么比尔·考斯比要求每个美国人向一个奴隶制博物馆捐赠8美元。主持人法莱·奇代亚，纽约民权联盟的执行董事迈克尔·迈耶斯，芝加哥太阳时报专栏作家劳拉·华盛顿和作家伊冯拜诺加入。

JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Jennifer in Washington. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Republicans and Democrats have just a few frantic hours left to get out the vote for tomorrow's midterm elections. By all accounts, those who show up to cast ballots will be a far different mix than the electorate of two years ago. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Polls suggest a big drop in enthusiasm among the young, African-Americans and Latinos, all key constituencies for President Obama. Meanwhile, more women may vote for the GOP for the first time in nearly three decades. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Later on the Opinion Page, former CIA operative Robert Baer on the growing terror threat in Yemen. But first: What's motivating you to vote, or not, this year? Our number here in Washington 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. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Later, we're going to speak with two people paying close attention to the African-American and Latino vote, but first an overall look at the electorate. Joining us from his home in Winter Park, Florida, is Peter Brown. He's the assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute. Welcome. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Good afternoon. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So Peter Brown, what is different about this midterm election? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, normally midterm elections are different than presidential elections because the mix of voters is different. Historically, the electorate in an off-year election like this one is older and whiter than the electorate that tends to show up in a presidential election. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Now building on that foundation, this itself is an unusual year in that there's clearly a difference in partisanship among those who are likely to vote. Republicans and conservatives are much more energized to vote, largely by their opposition to the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress than are Democrats. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): And so what we're seeing in all these polls of likely voters is the mix is greater of people who are conservative or Republican and tend to vote that way than we would have seen four years ago and certainly two years ago. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So you're saying even older and even whiter than one would expect in a midterm. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Normally. That is correct. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And we read so much about, you know, anger and people talking about how angry they are or upset they are at the government. Is that a big motivating factor as you see it? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Yes, it is. And because the Democrats hold both the White House and Congress, they're viewed as the government, and that's with (unintelligible) people who are angry at Washington are mostly angry at the Democrats because they perceive them as being the party that's running Washington. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Although there was something interesting in another poll. The New York Times and CBS did a survey recently, and they found that most people, as you're saying, want to throw the bums out. But less than 10 percent in that poll blamed the current administration for the bad economy, and most were optimistic about President Obama's next two years. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: I mean, as a pollster, how do you square, you know, sometimes seemingly contradictory views? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, I am a bit surprised, but no that - I'm sure the poll is accurate in terms of what they found. What I'd suggest is that's really bad news for the Obama administration because the Democrats are going to suffer fairly large defeats tomorrow in all likelihood, and if voters are doing that and don't hold the president and his team responsible for the economy, and the economy doesn't get any better, then that means that they haven't hit rock bottom in that way, if you understand what I'm getting at. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Sure. The slide could be going could continue. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Now, the Tea Party has kind of come from nowhere to be what seems to be a really big factor in these midterm elections. Do you have any sense how big is it, how influential might it be tomorrow? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): At Quinnipiac, we've asked in several polls, in states and nationally, whether people considered themselves part of the Tea Party Movement. And we get different answers but generally, somewhere between 12 and 20 percent of the electorate say they consider themselves part of the Tea Party Movement. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): That's not that big a percentage. It's certainly a big chunk, but it's not the overwhelming numbers that perhaps some think. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): But these people are mostly Republican. They mostly agree with the Republicans. Many of them have voted Republican in the past. The question about the Tea Party Movement is whether the enthusiasm they are generating among their people will translate into higher Republican turnout at the polls. The question isn't whether these people in the past have agreed with the Republicans. The question is whether they've voted with the Republicans. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And so you don't have a sense of how many of them have voted before, who might be newcomers to the political process. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): It's hard to document because obviously the electorate changes every two years based on the playing field and what's going on in the country. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Again, this imbalance towards people who are opposed to the president and Congress is the mirror image of what the political environment was four years ago when the Democrats took control of the House. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Speaking of mirror image, there seems to be a flip going on with women in the electorate. Some recent surveys show a majority leaning toward the GOP, which would be the first time that's happened since this has been tracked in 1982. What do you see happening there? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, those polls reflect, again, the composition of the electorate. The likely-voter electorate is composed of people, and half of those people, or roughly, are women who are unhappy with what's going on in Washington. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): And yes, there tends to be a gender gap, and one of the things that happens in big Republican years is that women tend to be split more evenly between the two parties, and men are very heavily Republican. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Now, there are also some female Republican candidates out there that we're hearing about who seem to have a good shot. Is that influencing things? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): To some degree. Some of the Republican women will get elected. Some won't. But again, it is my guess that what you're seeing in terms of the gender support for Republicans has less to do with the gender of their candidates than the fact that these are people who are these women are unhappy with what's going on in Washington. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): And if you're unhappy with what's going on in Washington, you tend to vote Republican this year. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Okay, we have an email from Ryan(ph) in Gainesville, Florida, who says: The Tea Party is getting me out to vote - in opposition, that is. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Why are you going to vote or not? Call us at 800-989-8255. And we have one caller here, Wesley(ph) in Fresno, California. Go right ahead. WESLEY (Caller): Hey, good morning. Good to be on the show. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Good morning. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Go right ahead, Wesley. WESLEY (Caller): Oh, so the reason - the motivation behind my voting this year because I feel like there's a lack of enthusiasm from my peers, I'm a 21-year-old college student going to school over here at Fresno State, and I feel like building off the momentum that President Obama created a couple years ago, I feel like we need to kind of reinvigorate the youth. WESLEY (Caller): And, I mean, I'm also voting for her because I feel like, as a minority, as a black, gay student who's only 21, I feel like there's not a big presence for us in this year's election, and I really wish there was a bigger there were more candidates who are willing to step up to the plate and talk about the tough subjects like Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other forms of discrimination, and I'm also voting for that, too. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Peter Brown, young people were crucial in 2008 for electing President Obama. They are traditionally lower to turn out in midterms. And we're hearing her from Wesley some disappointment there. What do you see happening? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, I think that's right. Remember, this is an older and whiter electorate, and that means therefore, there will be fewer young people compared to two years and fewer African-Americans and fewer Hispanics. That's what we know about off-year elections, and again, this year looks to be an off-year election in which we will see that exacerbated perhaps. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Wesley's comments about how he his friends don't seem as excited reflects that view among the young. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Wesley, thanks for the call. WESLEY (Caller): Absolutely. Have a good one. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Let's hear now from April(ph) in Asheville, North Carolina. Go right ahead. APRIL (Caller): Yes, I'm a 56-year-old white, Democratic woman, and I never intended not to vote. However, I had a lot of involvement with the last election, with the presidential election, and frankly I was worn out. So I wonder if there's a demographic like me that has been perhaps more laid back and not quite as involved as of late but that has never intended not to vote. APRIL (Caller): I mean, I will be voting, and I will be voting Democratic, you know, because there's no way that I'm going to let some of the people that I think are really extreme on the right side come in. APRIL (Caller): So do you have a sense that there is a demographic like me, that sort of perhaps worn out, Democratic voter that is going to get out there but who's not really been that active just because they got kind of tired? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, I mean, again, if people are excited about voting, they're going to go out and vote. And the group that's more excited about voting this year tends to be more conservative and more Republican. You can argue that perhaps portions of the Democratic base are exhausted from two years ago, but whether they don't vote for that reason, or perhaps they're disillusioned with the president, it doesn't matter. APRIL (Caller): Yeah, I guess I'm saying I'm exhausted, but you can bet I'm going to still vote. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Right, but the data indicates that you may not be as typical as you were two years... APRIL (Caller): All right. Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Thank you, April. Peter Brown, we are seeing an intense, high-profile, get-out-the-vote effort in the past week. We've had President Obama crisscrossing the country to support candidates, Republican House Leader John Boehner. Any of that likely to boost turnout by much? I mean, is that already taken into account in these polls? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, my guess is there aren't if you and I were to go walk into a shopping mall in suburban St. Louis, we wouldn't find three people who knew who John Boehner was. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Still? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): But Barack Obama's a different story. And clearly, the president of the United States, visiting an area, has an effect. In some cases, it might not be a positive effect. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): What Quinnipiac found in some of its polls is that more voters said that if the president comes in to campaign for a candidate, would they vote for that be more likely or less likely to vote for that candidate, and more said they would be less likely. But again, that's because the likely voter sample is a very conservative/Republican sample this year. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): But Mr. Obama's visits have a benefit for the Democratic Party in that they tended to excite Democratic voters. And the Democrats need to do that because the excitement has been on the Republican side. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): It's much easier to get excited about something you're angry at than to get excited about something that is the status quo. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We have just a minute left here, but I'd like to ask, you know: Is there something that you think is maybe particularly hard to read, despite all the, you know, all the studying you've done and all? Is there something that just might surprise you, you wonder, when you see the exit polls tomorrow night or wake up on Wednesday? What would it be? Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): Well, I'm not sure if it's surprised. I mean, I would be surprised, for instance, if the Republicans take the Senate. I don't think they're going to do that. I think what we'll see is a pretty big Republican wave. I think they'll take control of the House of Representatives. I don't think they'll take the Senate. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): There may be some surprises. The two interesting races to watch for your listeners: The Ohio governor's race and the Florida governor's race. Those are very important races because of those states' impact on both redistricting... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): ...in the 2012 election, and both are, in Quinnipiac polls out this morning, dead heats. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Thank you so much. Mr. PETER BROWN (Assistant Director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute): No problem. Have a good day. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We're talking about who's likely to vote tomorrow and not and why it matters. Call us at 800-989-8255. We want to hear from African-American and Latinos - key constituencies. I'm Jennifer Ludden. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: The fact is, most Americans probably won't vote tomorrow. Only about 40 percent of eligible voters usually come out for midterm elections. And one hint of who might win tomorrow, of those who plan not to vote, far more are Democrats: 54 percent compared with 30 percent for Republicans. That's the enthusiasm gap we've been hearing about. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We're talking today about who's voting, who's not and why it matters. Joining us now is NPR correspondent Corey Dade. He follows national issues at npr.org, and he's been looking into a number of races where African-American turnout could tilt the income. He joins us from the studios of Georgia Public Broadcasting in Atlanta, and Corey, I understand it's actually your day off. So an extra thank you for being here. COREY DADE: My pleasure, Jennifer. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We've been taking calls from people, asking if they plan to vote or not. Now we'd especially like to hear from African-American voters and, in just a moment, Latinos. Are you going to vote tomorrow? If so, what's driving you to do so? And if not, why not? 800-989-8255. The email is talk@npr.org. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Corey Dade, in 2008, when Barack Obama was on the ticket, African-American turnout topped the rate of white turnout for the first time. Does that seem at all likely to happen again tomorrow? COREY DADE: Not at all, Jennifer. What we'll see - I think for starters, whether it's the news media or the public, there's too much focus in comparing 2008 to this year. There is never a proper comparison or a useful comparison between presidential election years and midterms. COREY DADE: And in this case, they're looking at turnout. Historically, turnout for African-Americans, in particular for midterm elections, falls down considerably to the point where if it was 65 percent in 2008, nationwide, African-American turnout may fall to between 35 and 40 percent. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So I guess the question is: How would that compare to the last midterm in 2006? COREY DADE: Exactly. And percentagewise, that would be in keeping with 2006's turnout. I think the difference - one of the key differences this year compared with 2006 is that the African-American electorate overall is, by many accounts, from analysts and pollsters, is strategically positioned to have a larger potential impact on races outside of their immediate districts. COREY DADE: Historically, African-Americans who live in heavily minority districts often see their votes count most, so to speak, with their local elected officials, with their members of Congress, et cetera, who are running, there representing their immediate communities. COREY DADE: But this year, in key states, you have governor's races, Senate races that are so close that in those states where you have double-digit percentages of black voters, these black voters could provide the decisive outcome. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Hmm. So give us some examples. What are some districts to follow? COREY DADE: Well, as far as districts, let's look at states first. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Sure. COREY DADE: In Ohio, for example, the Ohio has a dead-heat governor's race, of course, and you have an incumbent there who's struggling. And so you have roughly 10 percent of the 10 percent of Ohio is made up of the black voting-age population. Ten percent could well be enough to influence this outcome. COREY DADE: I would say that it's not likely that you can blame or credit African-Americans for the result come Wednesday, but they will certainly be a factor. COREY DADE: In Florida, as Peter Brown just mentioned, African-Americans represent a strong percentage of the vote there, upwards of as far as black voting-age population, upwards of 18 to 20 percent. COREY DADE: And then you look at places like California, where you have a close governor's race. You certainly have, in places like Maryland, where you have a governor's race that was trending close, under 10 percent, but now the common wisdom, as it were, is that the Democrat, O'Malley, will keep his seat. COREY DADE: So also, if you look through the South, congressional races, even some governor's races, you'll see some more competitive races, whether it's Alabama, we're talking South Carolina, North Carolina, various congressional and Senate races and even gubernatorial races there, where you have large populations of African-Americans. By that, I mean, on the Democratic side of the electorate. COREY DADE: In some cases, like in South Carolina and Mississippi and elsewhere, African-American voters can make up as much as half of a Democratic turnout. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Well, let's go to a voter on the line here from Charlotte, North Carolina. Hi, Mac(ph). MAC (Caller): Good afternoon, how are you? JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Good. MAC (Caller): Wonderful. I'm voting and every African-American that I've talked to are going to vote because the media has taken us for granted and has indicated that we will not be voting. So all African-Americans that I know will be voting or have voted in the early voting. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. So you've already voted there, Mac. MAC (Caller): I have, indeed. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So Corey Dade, could all the pollsters be wrong here? COREY DADE: There's always room for pollsters to be wrong. COREY DADE: Especially when African-Americans are concerned. And Jennifer, I think it's important to note here: It's always difficult to gauge black political activity based on polling in part because pollsters rely on making phone calls to households with landline phones. COREY DADE: And African-Americans, particularly young ones under 30, maybe even under 35, many of them don't have landline phones. So if you're going to try to really take the pulse of African-American voting habits, polls aren't always going to get it. There are certain specialized polls that do a better job, but on the main, the African-American turnout can be a surprise. COREY DADE: This gentleman, this caller just talked about having already voted during North Carolina's early voting phase. That is actually a hopeful sign for Democrats. What they've seen in pockets of the country, the early voting phase has actually turned in a strong turnout among Democratic voters. So that could be a potential leg up in some of these more competitive districts. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Well, Mac... MAC (Caller): That brings up the point that I would like to make. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Sure, quickly please. MAC (Caller): The media's prediction has a tendency, I think in this race, to discourage a lot of people from voting, and I just don't think that's fair. And I think that the media needs to come up with another process in terms of predicting their voting, who's going to vote. But when you predict who's going to vote and who won't vote, it has a tendency to discourage a lot of people from voting. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Mac, we appreciate the call. Thank you so much. MAC (Caller): Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We are also joined by Arturo Vargas. He's the executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. And he's in our studios at NPR West. Welcome to you. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): Good morning. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Arturo Vargas, polls suggest Latinos will largely sit out this election, but you see it otherwise. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): Right. I challenge that notion. In fact, we believe that Latino voters are riled, ready and restless to participate in this election. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): I think we will see a continued trend in record Latino turnout. We have to compare 2010 to '06. In '06, 5.5 million Latinos voted. We project 6.5 million Latinos will vote this year. That's a 17 percent increase, about a million more Latinos voting in 2010. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And now this may not just be a factor of enthusiasm. Tell me, it's - Hispanics are the largest-growing sector of the electorate. Is that right? Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): They're the fastest and largest-growing segment of both the population and the electorate. And as Peter Brown in the earlier segment mentioned, anger is motivating many voters, and that certainly is happening in the Latino community, because... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Anger about what? Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): Well, anger about an increasing anti-immigrant, anti-Latino sentiment in the country that's being exploited both by campaigns and candidates, whether it's hate crimes of violence in the Northeast or the kinds of campaign tactics we've seen Sharron Angle and Senator Vitter in Nevada and in Louisiana undertake, the kind of rhetoric we've heard here in California over immigration. And of course, SB-1070 in Arizona, all of these have come together to create an electorate that is particularly angry. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): I would compare, like others have, 2010 to '94 but not just because you have a conservative wave but because of how immigration has been used to scapegoat immigrants and Latinos. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): In 1994 in California, we had Proposition 187. Governor Pete Wilson rode that to a re-election. I think we're seeing parallels of that. But what came of that election was an energized electorate. We changed California politics. I think there's a potential to change politics as well in states like Nevada, Arizona, Texas and other states. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Latino voters, let us hear from you, 800-989-8255. We have a caller on the line now, Paul(ph) in Randallstown, Maryland. Hi there. PAUL (Caller): Hi, how are you? JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Good. You are African-American. Is that right? PAUL (Caller): Yes, I am. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So are you going to vote or not? PAUL (Caller): I'm definitely planning on voting tomorrow. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And what's motivating you to get out there? PAUL (Caller): Well, there's three things that motivate me. One, I always vote, and I think it is my responsibility to vote. Two, I know just from having common sense that the agenda that Obama has needs to be completed and could not be completed in the time that he's been in office and definitely needs a more Democratic Congress to even, I guess, get close to goals. And three because of just the outright racism that I've been seeing expressed in the last two years just makes me even more steeled to vote this time. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Paul(ph), thank you for that call. And we have an email from Will(ph) as well. As a Latino, I am motivated to vote in opposition to the Tea Party. They are very extreme on their views on immigration, as you were saying there, Arturo Vargas. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Mr. Vargas, is this a geographic issue? In 2008, there were at least four states that were credited with really - Latinos were the key there. They delivered those states to President Obama. When you look at the map of the states here, where does the Latino vote matter most? Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): Well, that's right. I think the Latino vote will matter in a number of states. Nationally, we'll be from six to seven percent of the electorate. We will be 18 percent of the electorate in Arizona, 20 percent in California, 13 percent in Colorado, 11 percent in Florida, 34 percent in New Mexico, 19 percent in Texas. All of these states have key statewide elections. And as we demonstrated in '08, Latino voters have the capacity to make a difference in a statewide election. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. Let's get another voice in here. Robert(ph) in Fort Myers, Florida. Go right ahead. ROBERT (Caller): Hi. I am a registered Republican, but I do identify with the Tea Party more. If I will be voting - I'm actually outside the polling center right now. I'm going to vote early. ROBERT (Caller): And I am voting because I just am shocked that a commander in chief speaks openly about wealth transfer. I mean, to be something that you would do quietly or think that, but nowadays, it's almost, it's okay. And I just - it's that kind of mentality and the culture of entitlement that's getting us in trouble. ROBERT (Caller): And I think that moderate Democrats are realizing that you can only muzzle the mill horse, because it's the rich that move this country forward. If you don't make 35,000 a year, you're a net negative. And I just realize that we've got to empower the producers of society, and I think that the Tea Party and the Republicans have that vision, and hopefully, they can maintain tighter controls on spending and stop enabling the poor. And they're actually making the poor's plight worse by saying you're not good enough to fix your own problems. We have to help you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, so the economy getting you out there. Robert, thanks so much for the call. ROBERT (Caller): Sure. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: David(ph) is in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Hi, David. DAVID (Caller): Hi. I guess I have one single - well, I have two points, but the first one - and most importantly - is that I can't vote for a candidate whose agenda in their advertisements is completely negative, which means that, for all intents and purposes, I haven't seen here in Massachusetts - I haven't seen anything or anyone that I can vote for because what I'm really doing is voting against somebody else. And if our government is going to be made up of the lesser of two evils, then I'm not proud of that government. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So you're upset with the whole tone of the campaign? DAVID (Caller): Well, yeah, I'm upset with the whole tone of government right now, which says - that guy is a bigger jerk than I am, and that's why you should vote for me. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, David, thank you for the call. DAVID (Caller): Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Corey Dade, we have heard a lot about negative campaigning. You know, a lot of the Tea Party candidates have traded accusations back and forth in various districts. You reported as well on quite an aggressive courting of the black vote using what you call openly racial invective. COREY DADE: That's right, Jennifer. We've seen it. It's not that it's unusual - excuse me, not that it's new. It's just that it's a little bit unusual this year in that it's so unveiled coming directly from elected officials and state parties. Usually, you have third-party organizations that may support Democratic candidates who will launch these kinds of ads or use this kind of rhetoric, so that it doesn't get traced immediately back to the party itself. COREY DADE: But it's often happening in districts where you have a heavily African-American population, where they may be less engaged as we've been talking about in coming out in this year's elections. And so what you see is a lot of African-American-elected officials, in particular, who are reminding their constituents of the sort of sense of ownership that African-American voters have from 2008 and helping to elect Barack Obama. COREY DADE: I think it's also important to note that it's not just so much African-Americans, and what we're not seeing so much is that message kind of expanded. It's not just African-Americans who have a sense of ownership here for Obama's presidency, but Obama is the first president in, certainly in modern political history who was elected on a coalition of voters that didn't draw heavily from the largest crop of the electorate. COREY DADE: So when you talk about that coalition, it's not only African-Americans but Latinos, women and young people, and even among the young population, voters from 18 to 24 in age, among that group, African-Americans outnumbered every other group in that age group in turning out. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. COREY DADE: And so I think that they're trying to use that sense of ownership to get them out. And they're, quote, unquote, putting - pulling the race card with really little apology and theyre justifying it by saying that, well, you know, the Tea Party and the conservative Republicans started it. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. COREY DADE: They've been using... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: I'm going to cut you off there, Corey, to sneak in one last quick vote. Hi, Monica(ph) - in Norfolk, Virginia - if you could ask your question or make your comment really briefly. MONICA (Caller): Hi. I just I, me being a Hispanic Republican, I truly found that it's very important to vote this year. I believe we need to have a balance of power in our government. One party cannot control our whole entire country and all the decisions that this country needs to make. And I just got really sick and tired of this divisive government that we have. MONICA (Caller): Obama, I think, has brought more people to hate each other. And as a Hispanic, I am also very tired of the way the media paints us all. We are not all the same. Hispanics in California are very different than Hispanics in Florida... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. MONICA (Caller): ...Hispanics in New York. We're all different. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Monica, I've got to... MONICA (Caller): We're (Unintelligible). JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: I got to let you go because we're running out of time. But, Arturo Vargas, very quickly, there are some Hispanic Republican candidates out there looking to have quite a good shot tomorrow. Is that changing things? Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): That's right. I think that also can serve to energize some Hispanic Republican voters, whether it's in Florida, Nevada or New Mexico. I think we'll see an increase in Republican office holders. But another thing that's occurring in this election that's an indication of how strong the Latino vote may be is that there is a movement to suppress the Latino vote, to discourage Latinos from voting. So... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right... Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): ...I think we got to keep an eye out for that as well. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, and Corey Dade, a national correspondent for NPR. Thank you both. COREY DADE: Thank you. Mr. ARTURO VARGAS (Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials): Thank you.

The GOP appears to have won over women, as a group, for the first time since 1982, when surveys began tracking gender. Latinos and African Americans may not come out in full force like they did with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket in 2008. And many young voters may stay home. Peter Brown, assistant director, Quinnipiac Polling Institute Corey Dade, NPR correspondent Arturo Vargas, executive director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)

Die GOP scheint Frauen als Gruppe zum ersten Mal seit 1982, als Umfragen begannen, das Geschlecht zu verfolgen, für sich gewonnen zu haben. Latinos und Afroamerikaner werden sich möglicherweise nicht mit voller Kraft engagieren, wie sie es 2008 mit Barack Obama an der Spitze der Liste getan haben. Und viele junge Wähler könnten zu Hause bleiben. Peter Brown, stellvertretender Direktor, Quinnipiac Polling Institute\nCorey Dade, NPR-Korrespondent\nArturo Vargas, geschäftsführender Direktor, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)

自1982年开始进行性别追踪调查以来，共和党似乎第一次赢得了女性群体的支持。拉丁裔和非裔美国人可能不会像2008年巴拉克·奥巴马当选时那样大举参选，而且许多年轻选民可能会待在家里。彼得·布朗，昆尼皮亚克民调研究所助理主任，科里·戴德，美国国家公共电台记者，阿图罗·巴尔加斯，拉美裔选举和任命官员全国协会执行主任

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: As with Cullen Jones, it takes a different kind of thinking to overcome life's obstacles and rethink your approach to life. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): The thing that makes us all equal is this - all of us have 24 hours. The question is is what do you do with your 24 hours? So what most people do with their 24 hours is they give it all away and they're not able to move from label to leader because they don't own themselves, don't own their own mind and they don't know how to take information and education and apply it to their own development every single day. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's entrepreneur and author Stedman Graham. He's got a new book, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century. He argues that moving beyond external labels like race, gender and ethnicity are key to rethinking life's possibilities and reaching your full potential. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Graham carved his own path to success by thinking beyond the label and learning to embrace who he is. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): You know, for me, I grew up thinking about race all the time and had what I call a race-based consciousness. And when you have a race-based consciousness you're focused on white American and what the white man has done and government and all those things that you think, you know, things that control your life or that you think control your life. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): So I had no sense of, you know, having a strong foundation or understanding the real meaning of freedom. And I know we're supposed to be free because we live in America and that's fine. But, you know, when you're trapped in a box and you're in a routine and you don't, again, know who you are and you're defined by the external labels, then you don't have the freedom to define yourself. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): And you pretty much have to do what people tell you to do or do what, you know, you're programmed to do. Later on in life, when I got out and I, you know, became somewhat educated and understood the American free enterprise system and realized that the program was wrong and that it wasn't about my color, it wasn't about my, you know, where I came from. It really was about me not understanding who I was as a person and not having a foundation to build from. You know, not having a passion, not having a love for what I do. Not realizing my strengths, only focusing on my weakness. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You talk in the book quite a lot about the new diversity. And what does that signify with this process that you're talking about? Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Well, the new diversity is freeing yourself so that you can build relationships with all kinds of people. It's about being able to improve your talents and your skills and the competitive global environment. It's about being able to transcend race so that you can get past the labels and move more into the spirit of a person and move more into who that person really is authentically as opposed to making judgments. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): It's really about understanding who you are and how you build good relationships and how do you do all these things based on a nine-step process. And when you understand that, then you take more control of your life and you're able to now figure out how you're going to maximize your potential in your own environment of influence. And that could be the workforce, that could be your community, that could be your family environment. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): So it's being able to understand that this is really the new thinking and what I call the new diversity, you know, so that you're not relying on somebody else to free you or determine how you're going to treat people. And you take some accountability based on respecting other people's cultures and where they came from and you're open enough to be able to, again, build good relationships, which allows you to, you know, coexist. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I do have one point of clarification that I need. You talk about transcending race or rising above race, and yet you're very proud of where you grew up. So is the term transcending really - does that really get to what you're talking about? I mean if you have to rise above race doesn't that mean you're leaving something behind? Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Well, when you rise above it and realize it's about, again, tapping into that person's spirit and their essence, you don't - and you feel proud of who you are. When you focus on the internal and really invest in yourself, you're able then to rise above the external labels and you're able to essentially bring forth your, again, authenticity to the world based on what you do well. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): And so I think it's a good term because it's hard to do that, and without sacrificing your history, without sacrificing your past. Because you don't -you know, when you do that you feel good about yourself and you don't hate yourself and you're able to, again, feel good about who you are, which allows you to feel good about other people, which also allows you to feel good about your background and where you came from and the struggles and all of that. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): We don't want to give that up, but we want to be able to find out what's holding us back, bring the good stuff forward and kind of leave the bad stuff behind. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: At one point you were business partners with Armstrong Williams, who later went on and took money from the Bush administration to basically lobby or massage black opinion. Do you find ever that the idea of transcending race can slip into the idea of being an opportunist? And how do you feel about what happened with your former business partner? Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Well, I would say that, first of all, I had no financial interest in this firm. And we started the Graham-Williams Group - he still has the Graham on the business - because essentially as a black business or African-American businessperson I know how hard it is to get business and all of that. And so I've always been somewhat, you know, helpful in trying to make sure that, you know, he has all the support that's possible to enhance his business. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Again, he is a good friend of mine and he's helped me a lot, you know, during the course of the years. And, you know, I'm not ever going to put myself in the situation where I'm selling somebody out just because they got in a little bit of trouble or the perception is is they were involved in something. I'm glad to be able to explain that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And - I know this may seem a little delicate to you, but this is very much a kind of business question that relates to what you do. Your life partner Oprah Winfrey is someone who seems to exemplify the traits that you talk about in your book of being successful by coming from her own heritage but being able to reach out to other people. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Well, she is the standard. And she's been able to transcend, again, her gender, her race, her background - grew up very, very poor - and to rise above all of the historical baggage and the programming that she got, you know, early on. And so I'm just really pleased to be able to be with someone who has that kind of standard, and also, you know, who's helped me change my thinking throughout the years based on her learning and what she's been able to achieve in her life based on the shows that she does and the information she's got. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): So it really is about getting the right information. And, you know, I've had lots of people in my life who've helped me understand how it all works, you know, in terms of business and in terms of, you know, when issues come up or when obstacles come up. So it's really important to be able to have a good support system around you and, you know, weather the storm. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): I mean it's been - I worked in the prison system for five years, I've played in the European pro league a number of years, I served in the U.S. Army, you know, several years, I've written a number of books, I've had an advertising agency in New York. So I've been in a lot of different businesses, and I'm just glad to be able to have, you know, the kind of support system I've had to be able to get through the negative thinking that I grew up with and move out of my history into my imagination and into the 21st century and into the future to be able to create the kind of life that I want to create based on who I am as a person. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Stedman Graham, thank you very much. Mr. STEDMAN GRAHAM (Author, Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Stedman Graham is the author of Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for the 21st Century. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Thank you for joining us. That's our program for today. To listen to the show, visit npr.org. NEWS AND NOTES was created by NPR News and the African-American Public Radio Consortium.

Entrepreneur and author Stedman Graham talks about his new book Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for The 21st Century, which stresses moving beyond external labels like race, gender and ethnicity to the pathway of success.

Unternehmer und Autor Stedman Graham spricht über sein neues Buch Diversität: Anführer statt Etiketten: Ein neuer Plan für das 21. Jahrhundert (Diversity: Leaders Not Labels: A New Plan for The 21st Centur), in dem er betont, dass es nicht um äußere Bezeichnungen wie Rasse, Geschlecht und ethnische Zugehörigkeit geht, sondern um den Weg zum Erfolg.

企业家兼作家斯特德曼·格雷厄姆谈到了他的新书《多样性：领导者而不是标签：21世纪的新计划》，该书强调了超越种族、性别和民族等外部标签，走向成功之路。

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: In North Carolina, many of the inland towns that have been flooding this week in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence have been inundated before. Some were devastated just two years ago when Hurricane Matthew dumped a foot and a half of rain on the state. Florence dropped twice that much on some towns where people who were still dealing with the damage from Matthew were walloped again. As NPR's Jason Beaubien reports, massive flooding has become frighteningly familiar in some parts of the state. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Seven Springs, N.C., is a quaint town on the banks of the Neuse River. Main Street is just three blocks long. The volunteer fire department station sits just past a classic red Coke sign above Mae's Restaurant. But Seven Springs has a problem. Its population is in decline after successive floods have driven people away. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: This week, Main Street was filled with nearly four feet of water. The only resident still staying in town was the mayor, Stephen Potter, and his elevated doublewide trailer was surrounded by water. Two members of the volunteer fire department offered to push us in a green skiff over to his house. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Where we going this time? JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Potter's porch light was on, and he was getting ready to fry some chicken for dinner. STEPHEN POTTER: I take care of my mother, who has a little bit of dementia, and it's just easier to be here with her than to try to take her somewhere else. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: He says, if you're going to live in a floodplain, you have to be prepared. He notes that $600 or $700 a year for flood insurance is a bargain if it ends up paying to rebuild your whole home. He jacked up his house 8 feet after Hurricane Matthew hit it in 2016. STEPHEN POTTER: Elevation is key - if you're going to stay here, I mean. That's what I did, and you see we're good. I could have handled a whole lot more water before I would have been threatened in here. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Seven Springs is a small town, but it's a population that's fallen and risen with the floodwaters. STEPHEN POTTER: Pre-Matthew, we had about 115. That was down from about 175 to 180 pre-Floyd in '99. And then, after Matthew, we had declined in population to less than 40, I think. But we had gotten back up to about 60, and now we have this. So... JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Potter says he hopes the residents who fled this most recent hurricane will be able to come back. The volunteer fire department, however, is already in the process of moving off Main Street. They're building a new fire station up the hill out of the flood zone. STEPHEN POTTER: I honestly believe this is going to be the new normal. I mean, I don't know if it's going to be every other year, but I think it's going to be more frequent, and the storms are going to be more intense. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: And scenes like this are playing out all over the eastern part of the state. Thirty miles to the east, a tributary of the Neuse River has been seeping into the town of Grifton. During Hurricane Matthew, entire neighborhoods in Grifton went underwater. Now, as you drive into town, a gray Toyota Sedan is submerged up to its mirrors on West Main Street. Along Water Street, several homes are engulfed in water. Allen William's (ph) trailer is one of them. He has about a foot of water in his driveway. He says almost all of his neighbors left after Hurricane Matthew two years ago. ALLEN WILLIAM: A lot of them had been here all their life, and they're just tired of it. You know what I'm saying? They didn't want to deal with it no more, so they moved on. And me, I like it here. It's quiet, I ain't got to worry about - you know what I'm saying? Yeah. So I'm going to ride it out, see how long. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Most of his neighbors agreed to take a FEMA buyout for their homes, he says. But it's been two years, he adds, and they're still waiting for their buyout checks. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: While Williams likes the peace and quiet that comes from his neighbors abandoning their homes, these storms are tremendously disruptive to towns like Seven Springs and Grifton. Businesses that get flooded can take months to reopen if they reopen at all. After Matthew flooded the Piggly Wiggly supermarket in Grifton, the town was left for more than a year without a grocery store. An independent market called Tropicana moved into the Piggly Wiggly building but was shut down again last week by Florence. It still hasn't reopened. MANUEL BAUTISTA: This smells a little bit bad because the garbage - they can't put the garbage outside. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Manuel Bautista is the manager of the Tropicana. Bautista and his staff are trying to clean up from the water and wind damage from Florence and get rid of all the spoiled food. MANUEL BAUTISTA: We already throw away the meat and lots of stuff. So we just got, like, the frozen food over there. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Walking through the butcher's section, he says some of their freezers were damaged. Right now, he's trying to assess whether they can get everything running again. MANUEL BAUTISTA: Maybe, you know, we can reopen again because we don't got flooding. But we need to see how many damage we got and see if we can open again. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: If they can't, Grifton will once again be without a supermarket for the second time in two years because of a hurricane. The north side of the parking lot of the Tropicana is flooded, and, across that water, Theresa Marrow (ph) is weary of hurricanes. THERESA MARROW: It takes its toll. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: She says she's lived in this spot for 68 years, which is all of her life. Her trailer's now sitting on the spot where her parents' house used to stand. THERESA MARROW: It was a big, old, nice four-bedroom, dining room - it was a nice house, and I'm kind of sorry that it got torn down. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: It was torn down after Hurricane Floyd. The rising waters that followed Floyd in 1999 inundated that house. Now the waters are rising up towards her house again. She says if she could afford to move to higher ground, she would, and she thinks a lot of other people in these areas that keep flooding would like to move, too. THERESA MARROW: You know, a lot of people are tired because I'm tired. But God has - I got to give it to him, he has kept me the whole while, so I appreciate that. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: But in terms of whether more floods are going to hit here in the future, she says those are definitely going to come, and she expects they're going to come more frequently. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Jason Beaubien, NPR News, Grifton, N.C.

For some residents of North Carolina, severe flooding from Hurricane Florence came while they were still trying to recover from Hurricane Matthew, which struck in 2016.

Für einige Bewohner von North Carolina kamen die schweren Überschwemmungen durch Hurrikan Florence, während sie noch versuchten, sich von Hurrikan Matthew zu erholen, der 2016 gewütet hatte.

对于北卡罗来纳州的一些居民来说，2016年他们遭受了马修飓风，正当努力恢复之时，又遭遇了佛罗伦萨飓风引来的严重洪水。

ANTHONY BROOKS, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Anthony Brooks. MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand. MADELEINE BRAND, host: In a few minutes, the American bald eagle, still bald but no longer endangered. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: But first, congressional efforts to overhaul the country's immigration laws are, for all intents and purposes, dead. Unidentified Man: On this vote the yeas are 46, the neighs are 53. Three-fifths of the senators, duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: Sixty yeas were needed. This is a major defeat for President Bush, who was scrambling earlier in the day making phone calls to senators to try to save the legislation. The measure would have provided a way for millions of illegal immigrants to become citizens and it would have tightened border security. Joining me now is NPR's Jennifer Ludden. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: And Jennifer, where was the opposition to this bill? JENNIFER LUDDEN: Anthony, it was everywhere, all over the map, and for completely different reasons. I mean, you had both political parties divided. A lot of the opposition, much of it, was from the Republican Party. But you also had division in the Democratic Party. Some newly elected Democratic senators from more conservative areas came out against it. Unions were divided, some of them deeply opposed to temporary guest-worker program. And even some immigrant advocacy groups split. JENNIFER LUDDEN: I mean, some felt that almost anything will be better than the tumultuous status quo, while others were furiously sending e-mails saying that, you know, the penalties in the bill for illegal immigrants just made it too harsh. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: Well, this has been a long and painful death dance. What happens now? JENNIFER LUDDEN: I think action is just going to spring back to states and localities, where, frankly, it's been happening for several years already. And in this vacuum of federal action we have seen states and localities trying to address an issue that the courts have said really belongs with the federal government. JENNIFER LUDDEN: This year there are 1,100 bills about immigration in state legislatures across the county. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: Wow. JENNIFER LUDDEN: Twice what it was last year, and it was big then. Last year, they passed bills in 34 states. So it shows the extent of the problem. A lot of the bills, you know, they try to impose harsher penalties on businesses who hire illegal immigrants, or give law enforcement more leeway to detain them, or make it harder for the undocumented to qualify for various social services. So I think this trend is going to continue. JENNIFER LUDDEN: The impact is hard to assess so far because a lot of these bills haven't taken effect yet. One person I spoke with said a lot of them really kind of duplicate what federal law already says. So we'll see what impact they have. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: Jennifer, you mentioned that cities are also trying to crackdown on immigration. What are they trying to do? Give us some examples. JENNIFER LUDDEN: Well, dozens of them have passed or considered laws. And generally, they impose penalties on businesses who hire illegal immigrants or fine landlords who rent to them. But none of these have taken effect because human -civil rights groups have jumped in and challenged them systematically. Again, saying it's a federal issue and that the laws proposed are unconstitutional. JENNIFER LUDDEN: Now, an ordinance in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has become a bellwether and a model. It went on trial earlier this spring, and we're still waiting for the judge to rule. My layperson's bet was that he was waiting to see what Congress would do. But in any case, whatever he decides, people on both sides expect this to be appealed, so we could be on hold a while there to see whether cities are deemed to have the right to act in immigration. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: And what about those who worked as hard as they did to oppose this Senate bill? They must be pretty happy. JENNIFER LUDDEN: Right. But again opponents came from all sides, so presumably they're happy for completely different reasons. One irony here is that some of the loudest opponents who labeled this bill as an amnesty have gotten what they wanted - it's failed. But the upshot, as some see it, is a continued de facto amnesty, because now a whole slew of enforcement measures that were in the bill are not going to be passed. JENNIFER LUDDEN: And some will probably try to address this piecemeal, but I don't know if that's going to succeed. Meanwhile, you do have the immigration agency continuing its own crackdown. In recent years, we've really seen it step up workplace raids and deportations. Frankly, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of undocumented here. JENNIFER LUDDEN: But some argue, if you can just make it difficult enough to be here, then businesses on their own will stop hiring immigrants - illegal immigrants, or immigrants will decide not to come. JENNIFER LUDDEN: I think that's probably happening on a small scale, but I'm not sure it's going to be enough to make a real sea change in the way things are. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: Okay, Jennifer. Thanks very much for talking to us today. JENNIFER LUDDEN: Thank you. ANTHONY BROOKS, host: That's NPR's Jennifer Ludden talking about the death of the immigration bill in Congress today.

Legislation that would overhaul the country's immigration system dies Thursday in the Senate. Legislators spent the last week trying to revive the bill, but compromises failed.

Ein Gesetz, das das Einwanderungssystem des Landes überarbeiten würde, stirbt am Donnerstag im Senat. Die Gesetzgeber verbrachten die letzte Woche damit, den Gesetzentwurf wiederzubeleben, aber Kompromisse scheiterten.

将彻底改革美国移民制度的法案星期四在参议院通过。立法者们在上周试图恢复该法案，但以失败告终。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Ari Shapiro. Officials in Texas say a health care worker in Dallas has tested positive for Ebola. The worker was treating Thomas Eric Duncan. Duncan, who had been in Liberia, died of Ebola last week. NPR's Jeff Brady joins us from Dallas. Good morning. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Good morning. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What else can you tell us about this latest case? JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: The Texas Department of State Health Services says the health care worker reported a low grade fever on Friday night, and that person was isolated and then tested. Preliminary test results from a state lab in Austin came back positive for Ebola. Now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta will conduct a second test to confirm that. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: We don't know a lot about the worker - whether they are a nurse or a doctor - only that they worked at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, and that's the hospital where Thomas Eric Duncan died last Wednesday. And right now everyone is waiting for that second test from the CDC. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We've heard so much about the steps that health care workers take to protect themselves. What can we infer from the fact that this latest patient is a care provider? JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: We have been told over and over that this disease is most infectious when patients are exhibiting symptoms. It's spread by direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone infected with the Ebola virus. And then those fluids have to find a way inside a second person through a cut, a sore or a mucous membrane. And health care workers are the people who are with patients at their most contagious stages. So their risk of infection is higher than it is for most of us. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: So in that sense, it's not surprising. But health care workers also know how to protect themselves. And I think we can assume that everyone here in Texas in public health is going to be taking another look at the protective measures that health care workers are taking. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: This is still breaking news, but are we seeing any reaction so far? JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: From the Texas Department of State Health Services, Commissioner, also Doctor, David Lakey said, quote, we knew a second case could be a reality, and we've been preparing for this possibility. He also said that they're broadening their team in Dallas and working with diligence to prevent a further spread of the virus here in Dallas. The state also says they are doing their contact tracing. They're checking with everyone who had contact with this healthcare worker. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What are the big unanswered questions at this point? JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: We hope to get answers to some big questions at a press conference that's going to happen at the hospital shortly here. One big one that I have is was this health care worker following the protocols to protect him or herself? And we also want to know if this was somebody who may have been exposed when Thomas Eric Duncan was - first showed up at the emergency room with symptoms and then was sent home with antibiotics, or was this from his second visit when he went back to the hospital after he was very ill? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And at the same time, authorities are still keeping tabs on the family of Thomas Eric Duncan. What do we know about them? JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: They are still in isolation. The incubation period for the Ebola virus is 21 days. Duncan's fiancee, Louise Troh, and three family members who were in the apartment where Duncan was staying, they are being kept in isolation until October 19. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's NPR's Jeff Brady in Dallas. And we will be updating this story throughout the morning. Thanks Jeff. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Thank you.

A health care worker who was caring for the Ebola patient that died, has tested positive for the disease. NPR's Ari Shapiro speaks to correspondent Jeff Brady, who is covering the story in Dallas.

Ein Mitarbeiter des Gesundheitswesens, der den verstorbenen Ebola-Patienten betreute, wurde positiv auf die Krankheit getestet. Ari Shapiro von NPR spricht mit dem Korrespondenten Jeff Brady, der über die Geschichte in Dallas berichtet.

一名医护人员在照顾一名死亡的埃博拉患者时，被检测出感染了埃博拉病毒。NPR新闻的阿里·夏皮罗采访了达拉斯的记者杰夫·布雷迪。

ED GORDON, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS AND NOTES. I'm Ed Gordon. ED GORDON, host: For much of this week, we've taken a closer look at recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region one year after Hurricane Katrina. In that year, the Bush administration has allocated $110 billion toward rebuilding, and $44 billion has reportedly been spent. ED GORDON, host: Yesterday on the program, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi said very little of that money has actually reached residents. Representative NANCY PELOSI (Democrat, California): It was only in June that the Republican Congress finally enacted needed housing money for homeowners in Louisiana, 10 months after Katrina, and none of that money has reached the homeowners. So it's a combination of the slow process exacerbated by the red tape, compounded by the layers of subcontracting that siphons off money that should be going directly to people. ED GORDON, host: Joining us now is Don Powell, federal coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding. President Bush appointed Mr. Powell to the job last November. He joins us via phone from Washington. Mr. Powell, welcome. Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): Greetings. ED GORDON, host: You just heard from Nancy Pelosi. In a moment, I'll play a clip from Mayor Ray Nagin. You've got a three-year deadline given by the president to try to get everything up and going and in some sense back to normal. First take on what Nancy Pelosi said: money is going directly to people. Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): Well, I'm happy to report that - I know that money in Mississippi and money in Louisiana has been dispersed to homeowners. It's important - it was important that the people in Mississippi have a plan, it's important that the people in Louisiana have a plan, and the citizens have developed a plan and hired an administrator that will be administering those monies. As I mentioned, that some people have already received money, and that that money would begin to flow quickly any time. ED GORDON, host: Yet, Mr. Powell, from all accounts that I have heard, the bulk of the people have not received monies in hand to try to get themselves back on their feet to rebuild their homes and the like. What's been the logjam? Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): Well, the money was approved by Congress early on in the year. And secretary of HUD, after receiving the plans in Mississippi, approved that plan in one day; and in Louisiana, it was approved in 19 days. So the federal government has responded very quickly, and as I mentioned both states have hired an administrator now - one man's red tape is another man's accountability. And I know both states are being very careful, that they're being good stewards of the money. But the money is flowing now. ED GORDON, host: All right, you mentioned red tape. We had an opportunity to speak with Mayor Ray Nagin early in the week. I want to play a clip of what he had to say about red tape. Let's listen. Mayor RAY NAGIN (Mayor of New Orleans): We have operated over the past 12 months with about 25 percent of our pre-Katrina budget in just fixing things like our infrastructure, sewage and water. We have put in for $450 million worth of repairs, and we've only received back about 9 or 10 percent of that request. So it just takes some time to get through this bureaucracy. ED GORDON, host: Nine to ten percent a year later would not necessarily - even another man's bureaucracy and accountability would not necessarily be seen as good numbers by most. Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): Well, I think - I don't think those requests were made a year ago. I think those requests have been made over the one - over the year, so it's important that you understand that. As you know, New Orleans was underwater 57 days before anything could happen, and then the main concern was immediate relief for the people who were affected by this. So the requests coming from New Orleans was made to the state, not to federal government - so - and some of that has come to the federal government. But the federal government has also dispersed a large, large amount of money for infrastructure, something like $6 billion. ED GORDON, host: Wondering whether or not you would concede the idea, as we know, bureaucracy in general has red tape attached to it, whether there is a need to cut through some of what would be the normal procedures? Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): I think there's always a better way to do some things. You know, I have a sense of urgency about everything; I come from the private sector. But also I think it's important to be good stewards, so accountability is part of that balance that's (unintelligible) some of that tension that we all have. And I think it's important to get the money out quickly, get the money out fast, but I think it's also important to get the money out responsibly fast. ED GORDON, host: All right, Don Powell, federal coordinator of Gulf Coast rebuilding for President Bush, we thank you very much for joining us. Mr. DON POWELL (Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding): Thank you.

In November 2005, FDIC Chairman Don Powell was placed in charge of federal efforts to coordinate a recovery plan for the Gulf Coast. He serves as the Bush administration's chief contact with state and local governments and private interests. Powell talks with Ed Gordon.

Im November 2005 wurde der Vorsitzende der FDIC, Don Powell, mit den Bemühungen des Bundes zur Koordinierung eines Wiederaufbauplans für die Golfküste beauftragt. Er dient als Hauptkontaktperson der Bush-Administration mit staatlichen und lokalen Regierungen und privaten Interessen. Powell spricht mit Ed Gordon.

2005年11月，联邦存款保险公司主席唐·鲍威尔被任命负责协调墨西哥湾沿岸复苏计划的联邦工作。他代表布什政府与州、地方政府以及私人利益群体协商。鲍威尔与艾德·戈登会谈。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. We are approaching the anniversary of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. And we're going to take stock now on where the "alt-right" movement stands a year later. The "alt-right" was a term that surfaced leading up to the 2016 election to describe this vast and complicated mix of far-right groups, including those with white supremacist, nativist, anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic views. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Joining me now is NPR's Kirk Siegler. He is based here in LA, and he has been tracking this movement. Hi there, Kirk. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Good morning, David. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So what should we know about the movement here in the summer of 2018? KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Well, one year later, I mean, I think the early consensus is that this movement is still rather strong, and online recruitment is also strong. And this is according to a lot of sources I've been speaking with who monitor domestic extremism and hate groups. But you know, there's also some splintering going on among these groups, which is not necessarily surprising after Charlottesville. And you know, as you mentioned there in your lead, it was never really one firm, cohesive thing, this sort of far-right extremist movement. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So what do you mean by not cohesive and splintering? KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Well, you remember - in Charlottesville, if we go back just for a second, you had hundreds of men who were out in the open brandishing neo-Nazi, white supremacist symbols. And now some of them are in legal trouble. The others were said to have returned home to their communities, where they were ostracized. And so there's this division on where this movement, if you will, should go next. And at the same time, a year later, we're seeing this rise in other far-right groups who are not as closely aligned to white nationalism. And you know, I think that's further complicating things. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, I know you spent some time with some of these groups you're talking about in the Pacific Northwest. And we're going to listen to your reporting, so set it up for me. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: That's right. So I was in Portland this past weekend, where there was a rally held by two groups that have really been a growing presence on the far-right scene since Charlottesville, especially here on the West Coast. These are the Proud Boys. These are self-described Western chauvinists. That's the West, not the Western U.S. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Western because some of these groups say that their agenda is to protect Western culture. I mean, that's the way they put it. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Exactly. That's Proud Boys. And the other one is Patriot Prayer. And these groups in particular, their sort of preferred venues are college campuses and liberal cities. And that's why Portland, Ore., was in the spotlight. So let's hear from that now. UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Shouting) USA, USA, USA... KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Mostly young men dressed in paramilitary-style fatigues and black motorcycle helmets or khakis with red pro-Trump ball caps are squaring off with a crowd of counterprotesters. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Proud Boys, like this man Travis, who refuses to give his last name, say they've shown up to protect their free speech rights. TRAVIS: We're not here to cause issues. We're not here to start the violence. But we damn will sure finish it. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: And most don't elaborate on what the specific political issues are that they support. Another guy initially agrees to talk to me with this blunt caveat. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: And I'll listen in. And if it streams, I'm going to find you and call your ass out. If you screen it and it doesn't sound anything like what I said, I will find you and call you out. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: As is often the case, the Portland rally ends in dramatic fashion, with scuffles with anti-fascist counterprotesters and police firing tear gas into the angry crowd trying to disperse it. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: And there were hundreds of people here for this protest. Yet there were hundreds of thousands more people in this metro area who ignored it all. And as usual, a lot of TV cameras and streaming cellphones were trained on the organizer Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer. JOEY GIBSON: And if you look all over the news, you'll see news coverage about my campaign. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Gibson ran for the U.S. Senate in Washington state as a Republican. He lost in the primary this week handily, but that may be beside the point. JOEY GIBSON: And one of the things that I learned from Trump is he knows how to troll the left. OK? He knows how to troll the media. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Watching all of this, it can, at times, seem like someone's Twitter feed or online chatroom that's being acted out in real life. And that's by design, says Randy Blazak. He's an expert in far-right extremism at the University of Oregon. RANDY BLAZAK: They're not really a movement in the traditional sense that they have a cohesive political platform and kind of an endgame. It's more about the agitation and creating the conflict that creates a space for them. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Blazak, who also chairs the Oregon Coalition Against Hate Crime, says this has been a powerful recruiting tool for the far-right, especially after Charlottesville. RANDY BLAZAK: Gibson is very charismatic. He knows how to give a good speech. He himself is not a white person. He's a biracial person and can help broaden their message by playing that role of not being your grandfather's white supremacist movement. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: This also represents a division that's emerged after Charlottesville, says George Selim of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. He says there's a lot of debate online among hard-line activists about whether they should stick to overtly white nationalist themes going forward. GEORGE SELIM: You know, how they want to represent themselves - is it with Nazi-like symbolism or imagery, or is it in polo shirts and khakis that's ensconced in kind of white supremacist ideology that could be more palatable to the American public? KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: In the Northwest anyway, which is largely white and has a long history of anti-government extremism, it's clear that at least some of these far-right activists see themselves as being on the front line of a culture war over the future of this country. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: Amen. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Kathryn Townsend drove down to Portland from her home in Gig Harbor, Wash. She says liberal politicians are mischaracterizing the movement. It's libertarian more than anything else, she says - and not racist. KATHRYN TOWNSEND: My daughter is half Spanish. I'm 65. If I had any white supremacist tendencies or experience, it would have showed up before now. DAVID GREENE, HOST: One of the voices there in a story from NPR's Kirk Siegler who is in our studio still with us. Kirk, that woman there saying she's not white supremacist, not racist. I mean, these groups - it sounds like many of them don't know exactly how to identify themselves. So it does sound like this is a splintered movement. And yet, there's going to be this "Unite The Right" rally in Washington, D.C., coming up. So what should we make of all this? KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Well, exactly. It's hard to tell exactly even just from hearing them. But I should say, one of the reasons we did the story featuring the Proud Boys - the Proud Boys traditionally distanced themselves from white supremacists and disavowed Charlottesville altogether, though, David, I have been seeing some traffic online with some of the activists pressuring the Proud Boys to come to the rally. You know, the one thing that's clear is it's going to be tense. There's going to be a lot of security. The white supremacists, organizers of this thing - so it's going to be tense. There are state of emergencies declared in Charlottesville. We really don't exactly know what might happen. But I keep saying tense, and I think that's it. And I think there are a lot of questions right now. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right, talking there about the one-year anniversary of Charlottesville this weekend when there are "Unite The Right" rallies being planned in Washington, D.C. NPR's Kirk Siegler talking about this movement. He's been tracking it. Kirk, thanks. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Thank you.

After the deadly violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., it appears the far-right extremist movement has splintered. Though monitors warn the threat of violence is increasing.

Nach der tödlichen Gewalt bei einer Kundgebung der weißen Vorherrschaft in Charlottesville, Virginia, scheint sich die rechtsextreme Bewegung aufgespalten zu haben. Beobachter warnen jedoch davor, dass die Gefahr von Gewalt zunimmt.

在弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔白人至上主义者集会上发生致命暴力事件后，极右极端主义运动似乎已经分裂。不过监测人员警告说，暴力威胁正在增加。

ALEX COHEN, host: And now we go to humorous Brian Unger. Today, the day after Father's Day, is his favorite day and here in a strikingly candid Unger Report he explains why. BRIAN UNGER: Another year, another Father's Day come and gone. And once again I survived the national celebration of male parenting. My dad and I have a complicated history. It has never been easy getting through a day when I'm supposed to forgive the sins of the father and submit to the greeting card industrial complex. BRIAN UNGER: Well, here's your card, Dad, late again. Inside, a few hacky lines about how great you are for making me the way I am. And who am I, Dad? What am I because of you? I'll tell you what I am. Take a good hard look at your son, Dad. Because of you I'm completely, totally freaking normal. A stable, respectable mess, someone who's well adjusted, responsible, caring and humble, a product of a supremely ordinary household with you at the helm. BRIAN UNGER: You remember, all the times you never abused me physically, not even emotionally, for all the times you weren't absent and made me feel like a big piece of love. Thanks for giving me nothing to blame you for and nothing to sit around and feel sorry about. And you know what that nothing makes me? Someone with plenty of time to do things I enjoy, to care about people, read, and mostly time to be on time. So thanks for making me prompt, Dad. Everyone just loves a guy whose best quality is showing up when he's suppose to. BRIAN UNGER: I won't begin to talk about all the famous people I'll never meet in rehab because I don't have an addiction. What am I suppose to do when it comes time to repair the damage you didn't do, or the tarnished image that I don't have? That's right, I can't hate myself because of you. And that's enough to make a guy fail at developing a drinking problem. BRIAN UNGER: I'm never going to write a great novel born of anguish and bitterness. I'll never craft a brilliant song of regret and anger. I'll never be crazy enough to jump up and down on Oprah's couch because I met a girl. And I'll never get rich bilking anyone out of anything. BRIAN UNGER: I'm sorry for making this so public, Dad, but I thought everyone within earshot should know what a pathetically functional human being you made me, and what a big colossal gentleman you are. BRIAN UNGER: And that is today's Unger Report. I'm Brian Unger.

Our humorist grumbles about how his dad's love has made him alarmingly normal.

Unser Humorist schimpft darüber, wie die Liebe seines Vaters ihn erschreckend normal gemacht hat.

幽默作家抱怨，父亲的爱让他正常得惊人。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: On the cover of the current Newsweek, a muscular, shirtless man cradles a puppy-eyed toddler over his shoulder, the headline: "Man Up! The Traditional Male is an Endangered Species." Which may be an exaggeration, but the recession hit male-dominated fields so hard that some people call it the he-cession. NEAL CONAN, host: Women's presence and performance in the workplace and in higher education continues to grow, which forces many men to redefine themselves. As earning power shifts more towards women, how has that changed your relationship? How have men's roles changed? NEAL CONAN, host: Tell us your story, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Thats at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the hour, "The Good Wife" is back on TV. We'll talk with the creators. But first, the changing role of men. Hanna Rosin is co-founder of Slate's online women's magazine, Double X, and a contributing editor at the Atlantic, and she joins us here in Studio 3A. Nice to have you back on TALK OF THE NATION. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Thank you, glad to be here. NEAL CONAN, host: And the article you wrote for the July issue was titled "The End of Men." Inevitably, it had something to do with the rise of women too. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Right, exactly. I was basically looking at statistics in different areas: economics statistics, education statistics. And you put all these points together and you get basically a new map of what America looks like, which is really kind of intriguing, and it has to do with a kind of patriarchal dominance that we're used to over all these years seems to be fading, and it's kind of alarming. NEAL CONAN, host: One of the most important ones, that for the first time ever in America, that the number of women workers outnumbers the men. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Exactly, and that statistic hovers around 50 percent. It goes from 49 to 51. But it's also changed in high-paying jobs. There are certain professions that are being turned over to women. The higher you go up the ladder, it's flipping. So it's not merely that women are working, but women are working at better and better jobs these days. NEAL CONAN, host: But some people will say immediately: Wait, there's still a gap, a salary gap, 77 cents on the dollar. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): It's true, and there was a study that came out today about women managers, and as I looked at this, because I've looked at so many of these studies, after a while you begin to see that it just sort of depends on how you slice the numbers. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): If you start from the '70s until now, there's been a tremendous amount of progress. If you look at the wage gap, it's been shrinking over the years. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): There are still huge numbers of problems - for example, the problem with mothers. There's always a pay gap that's larger between women with children and men with children, and that seems to persist over time. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): But I think looking at the problems in terms of progress - women are making progress, they're not making progress, they've stalled in progress - misses the bigger picture, which is that the economy is becoming more amenable to women than it is to men, mostly because women are better educated and because the jobs that are growing are jobs that women tend to do. So that's the kind of big forecasting future picture. NEAL CONAN, host: But we can't ignore the fact that older women in particular are still amongst the poorest in our society. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Absolutely, and I think if you go from older to younger, the changes become stark. Another recent interesting study showed that women under 30 are - in 147 out of 150 cities - are making more money than men under 30, and that is really amazing. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): I mean, that's kind of a future generation statistic that shows both the earning power of women, their power as consumers. I mean, as it happens, that was a marketing study done to show companies who they should market to in the future. NEAL CONAN, host: And of the 15 job categories expected to grow the most over the next decade, men dominate just two of those fields: janitorial workers and computer engineers. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Exactly, exactly. So if you try and project 10, 15, 20 years down the road, it's not just a matter of what the recession did or didn't do, it's a question of the recession having opened up the window on something that economists would have seen coming for some time. NEAL CONAN, host: And those are the facts. How does that change people's relationships? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): It really does. That's the next question, is then what happens to American marriages? And I think that's different class by class. If you look at the working class, the big story there is that marriage is disappearing, effectively, in the sort of middle and working class, that women are choosing not to get married in the first place. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): The number of children born to single women is skyrocketing. And so you have a situation where it's not necessarily a pretty picture for women or a straight female empowerment, but it is that women are dominant and running households, and the men are kind of disappearing. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): And then in the upper classes you have a slightly different picture, where you have a lot more marriages where women are out-earning men, but there is more equality. NEAL CONAN, host: Is the playing field leveled in any significant way? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): In the middle classes the playing field is leveling. In education, women are surpassing men. And then you have the final question to talk about, which is why does the top still seem so male-dominated? Is that arcane? Is that something in the past? All this pressure coming up from the bottom of women doing better and better and surpassing men in all these professions, the legal profession being the classic example. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): There are just as many women graduating from law school, just as many women, almost, as first-year associates, but not as many women who are, you know, at the end of the road partners. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Is that something that's dying? Is that something that's an anachronism and that we'll see fade over time, or is that something endemic to child-rearing and all these other questions that we haven't quite worked out in our families? NEAL CONAN, host: Well, we want to hear from our listeners today how this is changing their roles in their relationships, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Dave(ph). Dave is with us from Charleston. DAVE (Caller): Hi. I'd just like to say it's about time. My wife and I, we first met 10 years ago - now we've crisscrossed who's made more money. When I first met her, she made a lot more money than I did. When we had our daughter, I kind of stepped up and made more money, and now she's kind of back making more money than me now because of the recession. DAVE (Caller): It's great, though, because it allows me an opportunity to spend more time with my family and be more of a father than just a breadwinner. So I love it. It's created balance in our lives, and I'm proud of her for what she's done, and if it switches back the other way because of whatever circumstances are out there, that's fine too. NEAL CONAN, host: So the sunny side of the role change. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): That's great, Dave. That's what we want to hear - I mean basically, when people can't - have a hard time imagining what this future looks like. On the other hand, everybody knows a family like yours in which the man and the woman have kind of traded places over time. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): I just, I was just editing a story by a man from Sweden who writes about the Swedish paternity leave. The country is trying to force men to take these longer and longer paternity leaves, essentially to change the notion of masculinity, as the Time magazine cover showed, to make men feel more connected and responsible to their children, the idea being that once it's an inherent part of masculinity, people will naturally trade roles rather than having it be forced from above. NEAL CONAN, host: Dave, how old are your kids? DAVE (Caller): I think it's great. NEAL CONAN, host: How old are your kids? DAVE (Caller): Oh, I just have one daughter. She's 10 years old. As a matter of fact, I'm leaving work early to pick her up because my wife's got a meeting. DAVE (Caller): And I do all the grocery shopping. I do all the clothes shopping for all three of us. And it's been great for since we've been married. So I love the way it goes. NEAL CONAN, host: Dave, good luck. DAVE (Caller): Hey, thanks, man. You all have a great day. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Guy Garcia is the author of the 2008 book "The Decline of Men." He's also the CEO of the research and marketing company Mentametrix and joins us from our bureau in New York. Nice to have you with us. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Thanks, thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, host: And your subtitle is "How the American Male is Getting Axed, Giving Up and Flipping Off his Future." In part, you say, well, yes, this is the rise of women, and things are changing in that direction too, but men are participating by, well, not paying as much attention to their future as they should. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Well, what I identify, and of course it was interesting to me that in two years we had gone from the decline of men to the end of men. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): But I think it is a reflection of how fast things are changing. Between the hardcover and the paperback edition, I had projected eight years by the time women would overtake men in the workforce. It happened in two years. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): So these trends are accelerating very quickly, and definitely what we're seeing is what I call a fragmentation of male identity. Guys are not really sure who they're supposed to be. We just heard an example of one way the guys are adapting to the change, but there are a lot of other ways that are not so healthy or compatible with what's happening. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): There are a lot of guys who are resentful. I've talked to many, many women who are making more money than their spouses or boyfriends or are more educated, and the relationships fall apart because the guys can't take it. NEAL CONAN, host: And that is a phenomenon that does exist, and it's hard to quantify though. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): It's hard to quantify, but you know for a fact if you look at the numbers that, you know, men's incomes have been shrinking while women's and other groups' have been growing. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): And meanwhile, sort of the image of men, we're hearing some interesting beginnings of change, but the fact is, guys are still expected in some way to be the patriarch. They still feel bad if they can't support a family. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): And this is a huge change. And I don't think society has even come close to saying, well, gee, if women are going to take over the roles that men used to have, now guys are free to be flight attendants and nurses and housewives - isn't that great, guys? Well, you know, most nine out of 10 guys are not so thrilled about that. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): And I've talked to women who said, well, of course, you know, that's why would they be happy? Those are the jobs we're happy to escape now. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): So it's not like, you know, trading apples for apples here. It's really kind of a switching of roles, and nobody knows where it's going. And then meanwhile, you have different categories of guys. Some of them are just giving up and they're saying men in their 20s and 30s tell me, you know, I know I'll never - in this economy, I look at the future, I know I'll never be able to support a family. I'm not even sure I can hole my own in a relationship. So I'm just going to check out and play video games. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): I saw an interesting psychological study recently titled Slackers or Superheroes, which talked about the different masculine role, the different roles available to men. And that's essentially the point they were making: Your option is, you know, drop out or be like an uber-guy, you know, just sort of take your models from video games. And that seems to be the two prevailing cultural archetypes right now for men. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Right, and then sorry and then there's this other aspect of it, where there's an exaggeration of the outer masculinity, right? You know, guys pump up at the gym. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): There was an interesting study that showed that the dimensions of GI Joes and toys for male kids had grown from normal to extra-normal to someone would work out constantly to someone who was on steroids to someone that would have to have surgical implants to have those dimensions. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Which if you think about it is what happened to Barbie. So maybe that is... NEAL CONAN, host: From the start though, yeah. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Exactly. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Well, Barbie grew in other places. But you know, at least Barbie has a better job now. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Right. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email we have from Luke(ph): Maybe I'm biased, but I think women in the workplace are willing to work more hours with cut benefits, conditions men wouldn't accept without a lot of backlash. Do statistics reflect this? NEAL CONAN, host: Does it have something to do with what was traditionally expected in the role of the woman in the home - i.e., working basically 24 hours with children and cleaning for no pay? From what I've seen, this explains the fact of stagnant wages, fewer health care benefits and the decline of unions. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Well, this is a long conversation: Why are women hustlers? Why are they able to adapt to the economy better than men? You know, some people say, oh, it's genetics, or women have this and that quality. It might also have to do with having been the underdog for so long so that women kind of scrabble in these different jobs. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): You know, they make do with less pay. They do the childcare and they do the work. It's just something that they feel that they've had to do all these years. So it's not necessarily that they're, you know, genetically engineered to, you know, be more successful in this economy and this education system. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): But you could make the case that - I mean I talked to generals in the Army, and they said, look, you know, 10 or 20 years ago the physicality, the additional strength of being a man, was critical in warfare. So there's no way women could ever have an equal part. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Nowadays if you can push a button or move a mouse, you can fight a battle in the modern army. So there's definitely been a huge change in the amount of - the requisites of kind of the inherent skills and abilities of men and women. The game has definitely changed. NEAL CONAN, host: More in a moment about the changing roles of men and women as earning power changes, and more of your calls. How has that changed your relationship? How have men's roles changed? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. Im Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Being a man isn't what it used to be. From the classroom to the office to the kitchen, the roles of men and women have changed dramatically. In some cases women now out-perform and earn more than men. NEAL CONAN, host: If you look back to 1970, women contributed only a small percentage of the family's income. Now it's just under half, 42 percent. As earning power shifts more towards women, how does that change relationships? How have men's roles changed? NEAL CONAN, host: Tell us your story, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website, at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: Our guests are Hanna Rosin, a contributing editor at the Atlantic, and she wrote the cover story of their July issue, "The End of Men," now working on a book of the same name. NEAL CONAN, host: And Guy Garcia wrote the book "The Decline of Men." He's president and CEO of Mentametrix, Incorporated, a research, marketing and consulting company. And let's go to another caller. This is Patrick, Patrick with us from Detroit. PATRICK (Caller): Hi. I have two degrees. My wife has three degrees. She's always made more than I. And after being laid off in 2007, I went into my own business and have not made nearly the same kind of wages, and I think now I'm faced with divorce because she can't see that I'm carrying my weight, or she feels as though she's carrying the load of the entire family on her wages and and that I don't measure up to her model of male in the relationship, as did her father. PATRICK (Caller): And with that kind of image, I don't know, I think the divorce rates are going to be spiking pretty soon. NEAL CONAN, host: Patrick, we can hear the pain in your voice. Obviously this is very disturbing. Do you have children? PATRICK (Caller): They're grown and gone. I'm an older partner. My wife is 10 years younger than I am. And it's distressing. NEAL CONAN, host: Guy Garcia, this is what you were talking about before the break, that sometimes Patrick's situation does occur - well, more than occasionally. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Yes, well, there are many examples of this, and unfortunately there often are younger children in the family, often growing up without fathers. And this is the most disturbing thing about this to me, is that if you add it all up, you know, the education gap, the growing disparity in the workforce - I interviewed Harvard professors who see a gap in the initiative and ambition of their male and female students. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): So this literally and of course you see that - you know, I say this goes from Harvard to Harlem because it affects every man, even Harvard students. So one of the results of this, as Ms. Rosen pointed out, is that there's a breakup and disintegration of the family. You're going to have more and more young men growing up without role models, growing up in an environment where they're either superheroes or they're slackers or they're losers, or their role models are on steroids. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Or - there were studies in the '50s that showed that males, young males, defined themselves by realizing what they are not. So they would decide they are not mommy. I'm daddy. So then their identity would coalesce around the father. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): What happens in a world where mommy is the key wage-earner, where mommy is the one that went to - got two degrees at college, where mommy is the one who is basically the head of the household, and they grow up saying I am not that? NEAL CONAN, host: Hmm. Hanna Rosin, the statistics on divorce? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Well, the most startling statistics are really about lack of marriage. The divorce rate is fluctuating. It's true. The problem with the statistics on divorce is that upper classes are getting divorced much, much less than they used to. The working class is getting married much, much less than it used to. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): In general, the picture is that marriage is kind of falling apart, but that's mostly due to the fact that women are deciding that women are not suitable partners. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): True. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): So it's kind of happening even before the story that this gentleman described. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): And when I was writing my story, I visited Kansas City, a pretty working-class crowd, and I talked to a lot of men who had been in arrears in child support. And in this kind of support group they basically all expressed the same thing that this caller expressed. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): You know, there's this image of man, man as head of family, and I'm not meeting that image. And their response to that was incredibly angry and frustrated, because here they had these wives who were kind of hustling, getting ahead, taking care of the kids, making more money, and they were labeled the deadbeats, and I think that's what has created essentially the men's movement in the U.S., which is partly angry, partly a legitimate response to changes in child support payment laws, and all kinds of things are adding into this brew. NEAL CONAN, host: Patrick, we wish you the best of luck. PATRICK (Caller): Well, thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks for the call. Let's go next to Jennifer, Jennifer's with us from San Antonio. JENNIFER (Caller): Hi, good afternoon. How are you guys doing? NEAL CONAN, host: Good, thanks. JENNIFER (Caller): Good. Well, thanks for taking my call. I've been an electrician for 10 years, working in the union with predominately men. And it's only until the last few years, since the economy has sort of taken its slope, that I've seen a real change in their I guess attitude towards me, where at one time it was, you know, we were all buddies working together, and now it's sort of like I'm a threat because I can do their job. And when times were good, that wasn't really what was obvious or stood out. JENNIFER (Caller): But another thing I'd like to inquire about that hasn't been brought up yet is the use of hormones these days. And I'm always hearing how, you know, girls are growing faster, we'll say. But in the same hand, does that work with men? JENNIFER (Caller): You know, if there's a ton of estrogen in the water, what's happening with our men? And I'll take my answer off the air. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, Jennifer, thanks for the question. Any evidence from either of you? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Well, there's a lot of studies done on testosterone and what happens to testosterone, and does it decrease when men are in diminished positions? Is there literally a chemical response to, say, joblessness and things like that, and does it kind of feed on each other? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Now, I don't I haven't looked into these studies deeply enough to know how legitimate they are, because there's but it does seem like at least culturally speaking, testosterone is the new estrogen. Testosterone is what people talk about as sort of affecting moods, causing the crash, the stock market, you know, all sorts of things. NEAL CONAN, host: Guy Garcia? Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Yeah, there are two aspects to that. One is, you know, huge amounts of estrogen in the water supply. I mean, you've heard cases already of young women growing breasts at a way too early age. There's soy, which has a lot of estrogen in it, in 50 percent of all products that people eat. That's one dimension that's worth looking at. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): The other one is that how men now actually see themselves, and there was a study at Duke that show that chimps that were lowered(ph) in the social hierarchy actually had dropped levels of testosterone. So it wasn't some kind of harebrained rumor. It actually has been studied. So it does exist. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): And also, the study I did with Fortune magazine and OTX, based on my book, showed that younger men, while they were much more okay with having a woman as an equal or a boss, they were less optimistic and sure about their own future. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Jeff(ph) in Pueblo West in Colorado: Male identity, I agree wholeheartedly that male roles are changing rapidly and radically. NEAL CONAN, host: My wife is a teacher, works very hard every day. I make more than she does but work out of the house. As a result, I do much of the cooking and cleaning and child management. We have three boys. NEAL CONAN, host: I like and cherish the role and know that it can and likely will change, the fact that traditional and stereotypical roles are gone and all of us have to be willing to adapt. NEAL CONAN, host: And he's right about that, but there's no way back from what's going on, is there, Hanna? Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): It does not seem like there's any way back. Statistics about men doing more housework, doing more childcare - they still don't do nearly as much as women - but that really is the plus side. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): I mean, the darker side is the kind of frustrated masculinity and men who end up in a situation with no outlet, no job, no identity to cling to. The positive way out, and I think the Time magazine story talked about this a little bit, is if you can somehow embrace the new role, which is slightly more equal, and not be threatened by it, then that's the best possible solution. NEAL CONAN, host: There's another email, this from Cameron(ph) in St. Louis: I'm a married father of two, an electrical engineer by profession, married to a physician. I am supportive of women in the workplace. NEAL CONAN, host: However, men are being unfairly discriminated against by affirmative action. For men to be happy, they need to provide. If women take that from their husbands, they undermine the success of the family. And there is a lack of positive role models, family leaders, providers, for males in the media. Instead, we have men being portrayed as less intelligent and subservient. Ray Romano and Homer Simpson come to mind. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm not sure anybody takes Homer Simpson too seriously as a male role model. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): But that is an interesting point he makes. I had a large response to my story from the Christian community. It was debated a lot in churches and sort of on online Christian sites, essentially trying to defend the traditional role of masculinity. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): It's the old notion of wives submitting to their husbands but more broadly this idea that, you know, there is a traditional role for men, there is a traditional role for women, and it's extremely threatening when that's upended. So I think that's a common response to this. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can go to one other caller. Let's go to Matthew, Matthew with us from Grand Rapids. MATTHEW (Caller): Hi. Yeah, I'm actually part of a family. We've kind of embraced the female breadwinner. For a couple years I've been a stay-at-home dad. And our ideal goal is to both be breadwinners, but we don't really care who makes more. MATTHEW (Caller): But I actually find it very difficult to be a stay-at-home dad because I feel like a lot of the modern, like, periodicals kind of treat us like we're not equals in the parenting partnership. Parenting magazine actually comes to mind. They had articles about what's wrong with dad and the problem with dad. And I just find it kind of offensive, and I feel like society needs to accept fully that children have two parents, and then we can move more towards an equality in the workplace, outside of the home too. NEAL CONAN, host: So, Matthew, you seem to have identified a marketing niche for a magazine. MATTHEW (Caller): I think so. NEAL CONAN, host: There's a job opportunity for you. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Exactly. I mean, it is true that stay-at-home dads are still pretty rare, but it's also true that the culture is changing in terms of who does what in the household and that the media hasn't really adapted yet. And I would say even schools haven't. We still have schools which will send the emails only to the moms or only, you know, expect that the moms do something, and really families don't really work that way anymore. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Well, guys are definitely not being rewarded overall in our society at all for taking the roles traditionally held by women. I mean, no matter, you know, you use to hear the stories about it. People talk about it. There are some evolved men who are obviously leading the way, but that's not where most guys are. And I see it every day. I hear and get feedback from guys all over the world that they feel like they're being punished when they do that. There - you know, there's that, oh, you know, that's so gay, or you know, why can't you be a real man. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): So, you know, again, this is not just a man's problem. I point this out more and more. In the beginning, when I started doing stuff related to the book, women - and I would point out that women in many ways are not just caught up but were now leaving men behind. They'd say, well, what's the problem? And the problem is that when you have a whole generation of men who are losing their way or losing their initiative, you know, these are their brothers, their sons, their daughters, future husbands, if they're going to get married at all, so that, you know - and I was delighted, actually, when I saw Ms. Rosin's piece because I was attacked for being - for writing a book that was anti-feminist just by the concept of it. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): So when I saw the article in The Atlantic, I was like, well, great -now, you know, now it's validated in the sense that people might realize that everybody - both genders have something at stake here. There's even, you know, evidence that males who feel threatened, disenfranchised, powerless, economically feckless, can become very dangerous. And if you look at the profiles of even the al-Qaida terrorists, it's eerily similar. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Meanwhile, in Japan you have a whole generation of men who have just dropped out of society, who no longer buy things, are not interested in raising families or building a career. You know, there's some really dangerous undercurrents here if we don't figure out where we're going. NEAL CONAN, host: Matthew, thanks very much for the call. Appreciate it. We're talking with Guy Garcia, who wrote "The Decline of Men" a couple of years ago, president and CEO of Mentametrix, which is a research, marketing and consulting company. He's with us from our bureau in New York. Here in Studio 3A, Hanna Rosin, contributing editor for The Atlantic, where she wrote the cover story in July, "The End of Men," writing a book by the same name. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And to stay sort of on the same subject, here's an email from Kathy(ph): Look at any TV show; the role of the father is usually the silly goofy dad. Mom is usually the strong, smart, sarcastic one. Dads are usually made fun of by their own kids. Why does the media do that? Is it because mom has the staying power of those of us old enough to remember "Ozzie and Harriet" to know this is not a new phenomenon. But nevertheless, Hanna Rosin, I think Kathy has a point. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): She does have a point. And now she makes me want to look at this more systematically, because in the '50s sitcoms, maybe the dad was kind of the solid one but not really there, not necessarily involved. Whereas now the idea is that you make fun of the dad is kind of a fairly new phenomenon. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Pam, Pam with us from New Baden - Baden is it? PAM (Caller): New Baden, Illinois. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay. Go ahead, please. PAM (Caller): Thanks for taking my call. We have a very unique situation, I think, in that I make more than double what my husband makes, and I have two grown children. And my daughter is getting ready to make(ph) a man who makes less than she does and will always make less than she does. And I have a son who's dating a woman who makes almost twice of what he makes. And the relationships are very good. They're very solid. And I think part of that is because we look at money as all going into one pot. And it's, you know, what you bring into the household, it all goes into one pot. And you know, it's for the benefit of the whole house and not just one person or the other. So one person's identity is not wrapped up in, well, I make less than she does. It's, oh, I bring in and we all share, and it's all part of the same - it contributes to the same relationship. NEAL CONAN, host: I always - when people say that, I remember Lady Bird Johnson, who said I would not share a bank account with Jesus Christ. PAM (Caller): And my husband and I have always shared a bank account, and both of my kids share bank accounts with their loved ones. And it just makes sense for us, and it's always been something that helps us to be open with our finances so there's no secrets and everybody shares in it, because it's one house. You know, you pay for everything together. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Pam, thanks very much. And we wish your daughter the best of luck. PAM (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Here's an email from Virginia in Sacramento. I've been single for years and have given up on meeting a man. I'm so glad you're having this discussion because this is going unreported. I think relationships between men and women, especially middle aged, are in breakdown. The reasons my relationships fall apart invariably is because I appear to be more of a man than the man, the men I date. I can paint my own home. I fix things. I play golf. I need to find a man who is more of a man than I am and not intimidated by a self-sufficient and smart woman. I think men want their moms. So... Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): That's a very interesting thing. I mean, again, when I reported the story, I remember the guy saying to the men, the guy leading the group, you know, who's the man now? She's the man. You know, and that was a very, very threatening idea to the men, that she had become the man. So I think it's not that easy to incorporate that. And you know, psychological research still shows that the expectation of women, even when they're in extremely powerful positions, is that there be some element of them that's maternal and nurturing. It doesn't matter if they're the CEO. That's just what people expect from women, and people find it strange when women don't behave that way. And we all know not all women are that way. Some women are and some women aren't. So... NEAL CONAN, host: It's all on a long spectrum, yeah. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Exactly. So that really hasn't changed very much. So I think it is hard to be a woman and just completely embrace this newfound dominance. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): This is one of the questions, is - as women take over the roles in structures that were built by men, do they then change the structures as well, instead of just trying to fit into them? I think that's the next level of where this is going. NEAL CONAN, host: We'll find out in your next book perhaps, Guy Garcia. Thank you very much for your time today. Mr. GUY GARCIA (Mentametrix): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Guy Garcia's book is "The Decline of Men," published a couple of years ago. He joined us from our bureau in New York. Our thanks as well to Hannah Rosin, a contributing editor for The Atlantic and now writing a book called "The End of Men," which will come out next year, also a founding editor of Slate's DoubleX, an online women's magazine. She joined us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much. Ms. HANNA ROSIN (Double X): Thank you.

The recession has hit male-dominated fields particularly hard, while women's presence and performance in school and in the workplace continues to increase. As notions of masculinity change, men are redefining themselves, as well. The Atlantic's Hanna Rosin and author Guy Garcia discuss the changing role of men in America.

Die Rezession hat männerdominierte Sektoren besonders hart getroffen, während die Präsenz und Leistung von Frauen in Schule und Beruf weiter zunehmen. Da sich die Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit ändern, definieren sich auch Männer neu. Hanna Rosin von The Atlantic und Autor Guy Garcia diskutieren die sich wandelnde Rolle der Männer in Amerika.

经济衰退尤其对男性占主导地位的领域打击严重，而出现在学校和工作场所的女性不断增加，且表现得越来越出色。随着男权观念的改变，男性也在重新定义自己。《大西洋月刊》的汉娜·罗辛和作家盖·加西亚讨论了美国男性角色的变化。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Pope Francis has been accused of dealing too slowly with the problem of clergy sex abuse, but now there are signs he wants to change that. Tomorrow the pope will meet with several U.S. bishops who've been pushing him for answers. He has also called a meeting next February of bishops from around the world to come up with a church-wide response to the abuse crisis. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: NPR's Tom Gjelten covers religion for us. He's here in the studio now. And, Tom, these U.S. bishops the pope is going to see tomorrow - they asked for this meeting about a month ago. What's the delay? TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Well, Audie, the Catholic Church is not the most agile institution in the world. And apparently that includes Pope Francis as well. As you say, this meeting tomorrow came in response to a request last month from the president of the U.S. bishops conference, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo. That was back on August 16. They said they wanted to talk to the pope about a specific Vatican plan to deal with this crisis. And only now are they getting this meeting. TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Also, Francis has been slow to respond to the former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Vigano. He essentially accused Francis of being part of a big church cover-up, even called on him to resign. Francis ignored the accusation. It was only this week that his Council of Cardinals said that clarifications are coming. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: We should mention here that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., will also be in that meeting with the pope. We can assume this has to do with his own connection to an abuse scandal back in Pennsylvania, right? TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Right, Audie. Cardinal Wuerl was implicated in that big Pennsylvania grand jury report last month. He hasn't himself been accused of abusing anyone. But when he was the bishop of Pittsburgh, he allegedly let some abusive priests off the hook. As a result, he's come under pressure to resign. He didn't respond for a while. But last night, he released a letter saying he'll go to Rome soon. It's not clear he'll be there tomorrow. But he is going to be talking to Pope Francis. Today his office clarified he will in fact ask the pope to accept his resignation. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What's likely to come out of these meetings? TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Well, the pope has to decide what to do - whether to accept Cardinal Wuerl's resignation and, more importantly, what to do about Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl's predecessor as the D.C. archbishop. Formerly a cardinal, he had to resign that position this summer in response to an allegation he'd abused an altar boy years ago. But that's not the end of the story. He faces a church trial, and the pope now has to decide how to proceed with that. This is one of the things the U.S. bishops are asking about. And it's complicated by the fact that McCarrick was a close ally of the pope. TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Behind that, Audie, is the broader question of, how do you hold bishops more accountable in general? We now know that clergy abuse is not just some isolated thing that happens in one place or another. It basically happens around the world. It's a systemic problem. The church desperately needs to do more about it. I mean, what do you? Do you just let disgraced bishops quietly go off and retire? You know how controversial that is 'cause you covered the case of... AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Cardinal of Boston... TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: ...Cardinal Law. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: ...Cardinal Law. What does this all mean for Pope Francis specifically? TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: He is being challenged now like he's never been challenged before. You know, in many ways, he's been something of a polarizing pope. He has taken some bold stands. He's made enemies. And now his enemies seem to be taking advantage of this moment to go after them - after him. They said that he looked the other way with allies like Archbishop McCarrick. He's also been more sympathetic to LGBT people than - including gay priests, than his predecessors. And now you have his enemies saying that could be part of the problem. They have linked clergy abuse to homosexuality in the priesthood, and so they are saying he has contributed to that by being as tolerant of gay priests as he has been. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's NPR's Tom Gjelten. Tom, thank you. TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: You bet, Audie.

Pope Francis is set to meet with a group of U.S. cardinals and bishops Thursday in Rome, to discuss the roiling clergy sex abuse scandal and the role some bishops played in its cover-up.

Papst Franziskus wird sich am Donnerstag in Rom mit einer Gruppe US-amerikanischer Kardinäle und Bischöfe treffen, um über den erschütternden Skandal um sexuellen Missbrauch durch Kleriker und die Rolle einiger Bischöfe bei der Vertuschung zu diskutieren.

教皇方济各星期四将在罗马会见一批美国枢机主教和其他主教，讨论不断发酵的神职人员性虐待丑闻以及一些主教在掩盖丑闻中所扮演的角色。

PAUL RAEBURN, host: Hi. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Paul Raeburn. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Now we look at the science and the art behind a particular kind of crime solving. When we watch crime reports on the nightly news, you know the images you see: a sketch of a criminal wanted for a burglary, a missing child's photo which has be aged to account for the years since the child was last seen, or a reconstruction of the face of an unidentified murder victim. All of these images are the work of forensic artists. It's a tricky trade, there aren't too many of them. These folks help identify victims and capture criminals, balancing art, science, and detective work all at the same time. PAUL RAEBURN, host: For the rest of the hour, we will talk to an artist and an anthropologist about how art can help solve crimes. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Give us a call. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. That's 1-800-989-TALK. Tweet us @scifri. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Now let me introduce my guest. Karen Taylor, a forensic artist, a fine artist -that is, an artist of fine arts - and an educator. She was an instructor in forensic art for the FBI for 22 years and is a long-term contributor to "America's Most Wanted." She's also the author of the textbook "Forensic Art and Illustration." Thanks for being with us. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Hello, Paul. Nice to meet you. Thanks for having me. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Nice to meet you. And Mary Manhein, director of the Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services Laboratory at Louisiana State University, and a professional in residence in the Department of Anthropology. She's also the author of two books about her years in the field, "The Bone Lady: Life as a Forensic Anthropologist," and "Trail of Bones." Welcome to the program, Madam Bone Lady. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Thank you, Paul. It's good to be here. PAUL RAEBURN, host: So we want to talk about these drawings, which we've all seen on TV and, I don't know, in the post office and all over the place all our lives. And I'm going to start right out by expressing my skepticism. I never believed these things could really work. How could somebody describe to you something they'd seen possibly in a moment of high emotion and how would you be able to translate that into something that actually looked like the person who's being sought? Karen Taylor, can you really do this kind of thing? Come on. You can give me the truth here. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Well, admittedly, it is an imperfect process, at times an esoteric process. But indeed, it has worked time and time again and has proven to be a really valuable tool in the - in crime fighting, in the law enforcement arena. I'm inclined to ask you something like, do you remember where you were when you got the news that Princess Diana had died? Can you tell me where you were? PAUL RAEBURN, host: You know, I can't. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Or how about when the space shuttle crashed? Or... PAUL RAEBURN, host: I know when the space shuttle blew up. I know where - I was at work and I was immediately jumping in to cover it. So I remember that very well, as matter of fact. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Well, the point I was going to make is you could probably tell me about those issues in your life or those times in your life where there was a traumatic event and the memories become inextricably associated. You could probably tell me where you were seated. You might even tell me what you were doing with your hands, what you were tasting, smelling, hearing. But if I ask you about the day before or the day after, you couldn't tell me much. So that's sort of how this process works when it comes to the composite imagery part of it. There's lots of different aspects of forensic art. But memory definitely is affected by the amount of stress, the amount of violence, trauma related to the associated event. PAUL RAEBURN, host: So the now, one of the things that we've heard from memory research is that - I'm sure I don't have this exactly right - but that, you know, if you experience something when you're frightened, then you're maybe more likely to remember that better when you're frightened again, or you know, if you're in similar emotional circumstances, that would be something that might help recall those memories. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): I think that it might be, you know, a reference to reinstating the context of the event, a technique some interviewers use to pull back... PAUL RAEBURN, host: Let me stop you for just a moment. We'll pick it up. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Sure. PAUL RAEBURN, host: We have to take a very short break. PAUL RAEBURN, host: From NPR, this is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Paul Raeburn. We're talking this hour about science and forensic art. My guests are Karen Taylor, a renowned forensic artist and the author of the textbook "Forensic Art and Illustration"; and Mary Manhein, director of the Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services Laboratory at Louisiana State University, the author of "The Bone Lady" and the "Trail of Bones." PAUL RAEBURN, host: So Karen Taylor, I guess what I was asking was when you interview people to do these kinds of drawings, do you have to get them in a particular state of mind or - what do you do to prepare them to get the best information from them? Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Well, first, I should address maybe a little bit about the expectations of composite sketches. There's a friend of mine, an anatomist named Dr. Robert George, who has said that forensic art is actually portrait art minus a tangible subject. So you have to realize that we're tackling a very difficult task here. You also have to remember that there can be any number of complications along the way. When a face is seen by a crime victim or a witness to a crime, there's that period of encoding the face in memory, that acquisition period. There's a period of time in which the face is stored in memory. And then the sketch artist comes in at the time when we have to try and retrieve that encoded and stored memory. So difficulties can occur anywhere along the path of that process. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Also, we have to consider that there are variables in the witnesses' degree of involvement with the crime. And each interview has a different dynamic. So it's hard to simply say, you do this, this and this for any given interview. For instance, somebody could be very actively involved, or they could be actually a crime victim who was physically assaulted and injured. They might be more passively involved, having just maybe viewed an incident, but they don't have that adrenaline pump, not being personally threatened. Or they may be totally inactive, having no knowledge that a crime has actually occurred, that they'd seen anything of significance. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): So to try and answer, the interview varies considerably depending upon the complications involved and depending upon traits of the witnesses. Is this an elderly person? Is this a very young person? Is this someone with a language barrier? Is this someone who has seen a face at night or at a distance? And all those things have to be taken into account as I prepare for an interview. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Now, Mary Manhein, how does anthropology - how does the science of anthropology contribute to this kind of work? And tell us a little bit about what you do. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Well, as you noted, Paul, we are the FACES Lab, and as forensic anthropologists who work with many, many different states, we often are called upon to create an image from just the bone. So we're asked to do 3-D facial reconstructions on those skulls of persons who are unidentified, and perhaps that's the last hope for a lot of people, a lot of law enforcement and families who want to get these people identified. PAUL RAEBURN, host: So this could be a murder victim, a missing person, all kinds of things. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): It's going to be - right. It's going to be someone who's missing from somewhere, because this male, female, young person, elderly person is unidentified. So we use our science in anthropology to determine the ancestry, or some people say race. We look for sex, we look for age. And then we have special tissue depth markers that we place across... PAUL RAEBURN, host: Hang on a second. Before you get to the markers - race, sex and age. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Right. PAUL RAEBURN, host: How do you tell those things from bones? Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Well, age, if we have the entire skeleton - there's 206 bones in the human skeleton - and if we have the entire skeleton, it's really great to use the hip bones. For an adult, the hip bones are the best bones in the body for determining both sex and age of an individual, because there's areas across the hip bone that change their morphology or their appearance as we age. And those standards that have been developed for determining the age of someone have come about through observing cadavers, persons of known age. That... PAUL RAEBURN, host: So what - something is changing shape or is bone growing or... Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): The bone is deteriorating. PAUL RAEBURN, host: What's going on? Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): We're breaking down, Paul. We're breaking down. PAUL RAEBURN, host: We're falling apart. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): After about 18 or so, it's downhill all the way. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Oh, boy. I knew I was sorry I asked that question. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): So there's two surfaces, the pubic symphysis and the auricular surface on the hip bones that change their appearance, because they do kind of wear out and wear down with age, you might say. And we can use those to help us age someone. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): If we don't have the entire skeleton, then we can use the skull. We can look at breakdown in the other bones. We can look for what are called osteophytes, which are signs of arthritis. So there's indicators all across the skeleton which help us with the age of the person. And then as I said, sex can be determined by the shape of the hip bone. PAUL RAEBURN, host: And so the - what about race? Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Race, typically, is in our ancestry. We call it - sometimes, it's in the face as a general rule. We take measurements all across the skull. We also look at what are called morphoscopic features, which are non-metric features, non-measurable features, that tell us about populations. And ancestry or race is absolutely one of the hardest questions we have to answer, but it's one of the most important things to answer when you're trying to rebuild a face. And in actuality, it's the substrate of the skull, the architecture of the skull that guides us. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): But we will say, as a general rule, we believe this person could be a white individual or a black or African-American individual, or perhaps Hispanic, Native American. And then we are able to give this information to our facial reconstructionist. In our case, it's generally Irene Vere(ph) who works with me, who is just a phenomenal reconstructionist. And she takes that information, and that will guide her in determining how wide to make the nose, how deep-set, or perhaps to make the eyes, the morphology plays a role there, or how to create the mouth, the ears. So there's features on the skull that guide her. And then we also place tissue depth markers on the skull at very specific areas, cut to very specific links and millimeters that help guide her in developing or recreating the tissue. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Now, is this normally done in the context of some sort of police investigation? Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Right. Law enforcement comes to us, and they say, we have a case, Mary. We have no idea who this is. Can you help us with it? So we'll do our regular profile, and then if we have no luck in putting that profile out to the public, we will go ahead and do a facial reconstruction. And we will often times publicize that, either through the local media or through our website called identifyla.lsu.edu or through the national website called identifyus.org, and that's through the National Association of Medical Examiners. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): And this site, the main - the national one and our site are increasing in numbers every day. So people can go to the national site and they can come to our site and look up images that we've created on people who are unidentified, and they can also look up information on missing people or query different states to find out about all of these cases that we're trying to resolve across the country. PAUL RAEBURN, host: I was going to ask you why you were called the bone lady, but I'm starting to get it. The - who gave you that name, anyway? PAUL RAEBURN, host: Law enforcement gave me that. PAUL RAEBURN, host: I was going to... PAUL RAEBURN, host: They would come, they would call on LSU and they would say, is that lady there, you know, that lady that fools with those bones? We need her really bad. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): The bone lady, can you get her for us? So that's why I named my book that because that's what they call me. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Right. Now, Karen Taylor, the police and law enforcement people are a pretty skeptical bunch. They really need to see evidence before they'll believe anything, I think. Do they buy these sketches? Do they buy into this? Do they think it's helpful? Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): It varies around the country. Certainly, once a police agency or a detective sees a couple of successful cases, they're convinced that there is some potential value to their investigation with this work. So nothing encourages like success. So... Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): ...it just takes one good hit, as we call it, and they keep coming back. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Now you've had a pretty good track record with this - all kinds of different agencies you've work with. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Well, I've been very fortunate to have the most rewarding career -personally rewarding - imaginable. I worked for almost 20 years at the state police, the Texas Department of Public Safety here, but also for other agencies around the country, and in fact, outside the country. But there's still is, I believe, a lot of lack of understanding about this field. It is deceptively complex - both the part about identifying criminal faces as well as the unidentified deceased faces. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): There are certain things - as I know that you're interested in the psychology of it - there are certain things that are intriguingly similar that come into play for both types of cases. For instance, when you see a face, we tend to think that we recognize someone by the shape of their lips or their eyes. And in fact, the studies in the cognitive psychology field tend to prove out that that's not quite exactly what happens. Rather, we are encoding the array of the features, the holistic property of the way your faces light out. When you see someone walking to you that, you know, maybe they're a block away, the reason you recognize them may well be - you can't see every eyelash or every freckle, but you can see the layout of their face. And that's what we're trying to capture from words alone in a composite sketch. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): The good news is with skulls, as Mary was discussing, when we try to use all our various formulas for developing the features to create a skull-to-face reconstruction. That is given, that wonderful holistic property that layout, that all-important layout of the facial features that overrides everything else, it seems, for triggering recognition and triggering the memory of a face is given in the skull. So even if we don't get everything absolutely perfect in the facial reconstruction, whether it's being done on the skulls by - as a drawing or as a sculpture, if we can put out something that shows the layout, that spatial arrangement, it may well work. And another thing that seems to go on is that family members who are searching for a missing loved one seem to be able to extrapolate, seem to be able to interpret in a way that maybe others just glancing at a item of forensic art and don't see the resemblance to the target subject. If you're looking for someone who's missing, you may see something that others don't. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Right. Let me take a question from - this is - I'm Paul Raeburn, I'm sorry. This - from - this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Let me take a question from Luke(ph) in Kingsport, Tennessee. Luke, are you with us? LUKE (Caller): Yes, sir. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. Go ahead. LUKE (Caller): Yes. I actually had a question, and probably for both of the ladies. (Technical difficulty) PAUL RAEBURN, host: He's looking - yeah, I think we lost Luke, unfortunately. He wanted to ask about if you use a celebrity face as a sort of a comparison, whether that kind of thing might be helpful. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): It's actually relatively common, in doing the composite sketching process, that the mind seems to seek something familiar when trying to retrieve a facial memory. And it's relatively common for a witness to say, hey, he reminded me of so and so, and that maybe someone they know, but it may well be a celebrity face. So I actually have, for many years - and I think other artist do as well, kept files of celebrity faces to try and pin down (unintelligible). PAUL RAEBURN, host: Really, is - does a person look a little bit like this one or something? Yeah. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Yes. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Yeah. Okay, does Lady Gaga come up very often in that kind of an investigation? Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Not for me. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Not for you. Okay. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Thank goodness. PAUL RAEBURN, host: Well, I'm sorry to say we're out of time. I've had a great time talking about this. My guests have been Karen Taylor, a renowned forensic artist, fine artist and educator. She's also the author of the textbook "Forensic Art and Illustration." Also, Mary Manhein, aka The Bone Lady, director of the FACES Lab at Louisiana State University and the author of two books, "The Bone Lady" and "Trail of Bones." Thanks for being with us. Professor MARY MANHEIN (Louisiana State University): Thank you. Ms. KAREN TAYLOR (Forensic Artist): Thanks, Paul.

Many police departments use forensic artists to help solve crimes. From composite sketches to facial reconstructions, the work of these artists combines creativity, science and detective skills. Artist Karen T. Taylor and anthropologist Mary Manhein discuss the science behind forensic art.

Viele Polizeidienststellen setzen forensische Künstler ein, um bei der Aufklärung von Verbrechen zu helfen. Von zusammengesetzten Skizzen bis hin zu Gesichtsrekonstruktionen - die Arbeit dieser Künstler verbindet Kreativität, Wissenschaft und detektivische Fähigkeiten. Die Künstlerin Karen T. Taylor und die Anthropologin Mary Manhein erörtern die Wissenschaft hinter der forensischen Kunst.

许多警察部门利用法医艺术家帮助破案。从合成素描到面部重建，这些艺术家的作品结合了创造力、科学和侦探技巧。艺术家卡伦·T·泰勒和人类学家玛丽·曼海因讨论了法医艺术背后的科学。

ED GORDON, Host: And now, a quick look at what the summer heat wave may mean to the cost of energy down the line. Ernie Moniz is professor of physics and co-director of the Lab for Energy and the Environment at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thanks for joining us, professor. Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): My pleasure. ED GORDON, Host: We see high usage, this summer, of energy across the border and across this country. What will that mean to the consumer down the line? Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): Well, clearly, we are in a period of some tight, tight supply both in - both for oil and for gas. And so, I think, frankly, energy prices are likely to stay a bit higher than they have been historically over the next year or so. ED GORDON, Host: And what of those who have already had problems trying to pay for energy? We've talked a lot about low-income home energy assistance, the program there and whether we've seen additional funds needed to help people out. When you see a summer like this, what does it mean for programs like that? Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): Well, clearly, it enhances the importance of distributional issues, if you like - in terms of assisting with the energy needs of the less well-endowed. And I think of that also - of course, we know that now on the summertime, particularly with gasoline prices. But of course, come the winter, we use a tremendous amount of energy in our residences. And programs like the government assistance program are very important. Certainly here in New England they are quite important. ED GORDON, Host: Many people have faulted the government for failing to adopt a crucial energy savings standard and program. There are those who suggest that they've turned away for those who need that kind of assistance. I know at MIT, you co-chaired a committee that looked at the idea of an ambitious effort to solve many of the energy problems we face. Talk to us very briefly about that. Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): Right. Our president, Susan Hockfield, made an announcement just about a year ago that - in effect - an institution like MIT - well, you know, pretty eminent institution in science and engineering - as well as economics and policy, really needs to apply our talents to this crucial energy problem. As we look ahead, we see the combination of climate change, constraints. And of security constraints, needing for us to dramatically transform the energy system. We need new approaches in transportation, highly efficient vehicles, bio fuels, possibly electricity as a source of transportation fuel. And we need very large scale, carbon-free electricity. Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): That means really new technologies. For example, for coal to have a major role - and of course, we have lots of coal in the United States - in this world of climate change constraint, we need to be able to capture the carbon dioxide in huge volumes and store it geologically. We need to get a new generation of nuclear power plants - safe power plants, minimizing waste problems - deployed. We need to get for the longer term - if you like the long pole in the tent - is ultimately being able to use direct solar radiation to supply a large fraction of our electricity. ED GORDON, Host: Ernie Moniz is professor of physics and co-director of the Lab for Energy and the Environment at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We thank you. Professor ERNIE MONIZ (Physics, MIT; Co-Director, Lab for Energy and the Environment): Thank you. ED GORDON, Host: Coming up, foot-in-mouth disease hits a politician one more time. And racial profiling - is it needed? We'll discuss these topics and more on our Roundtable.

Several months ago, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report addressing reasons for rising energy prices. Ed Gordon discusses the report's recommendations with Ernie Moniz, professor of physics and co-director of the Lab for Energy and the Environment at MIT.

Vor einigen Monaten veröffentlichten Forscher des Massachusetts Institute of Technology einen Bericht über die Gründe für steigende Energiepreise. Ed Gordon diskutiert die Empfehlungen des Berichts mit Ernie Moniz, Professor für Physik und Co-Direktor des Lab for Energy and the Environment am MIT.

几个月前，麻省理工学院的研究人员发布了一份报告，阐述了能源价格上涨的原因。艾德·戈登就报告的建议采访了厄尼·莫妮兹，后者是麻省理工学院的物理学教授和能源与环境实验室的联合主任。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We're going to begin today by focusing on Syria, where the regime's army, backed by Russia and Iran, is on the verge of retaking the province of Idlib. Idlib is the last major province where rebels are still standing. And, according to the U.N., it's where some 1.4 million civilians have fled seeking refuge from the conflict. Hiba Aljazzar is one of them. We heard from her on this program back in March. She's a 24-year-old laboratory analyst who spent months under siege in eastern Ghouta before she finally made it to Idlib. We reached out to Hiba again today, and she was packing and preparing to leave again. This time, she's hoping to make it to a Turkey-controlled area of Afrin. HIBA ALJAZZAR: I cried so much with my brothers. I left there in eastern Ghouta. I don't want to remember again. That's enough for us. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We wanted to hear more about the situation in Idlib and why the current moment is so critical, so we've called Martin Chulov of The Guardian. He's been covering the conflict in Syria since it began years ago. He's with us now from Beirut. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Martin, thanks so much for joining us. MARTIN CHULOV: You're welcome. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The conflict there has gone on for, what, seven - the war has - as it's understood to have been a war - has been going on for seven years now. So, in that time, there have been many, many battles, but this one is considered critical, and why is that? MARTIN CHULOV: It's basically the endgame for Syria. It's the one part of the country that remains effectively an opposition stronghold, and it is very important for the Syrian regime and its backers to recapture it so they can claim that after seven grinding years of war, they have finally won back with the military offensive the last known pocket of opposition resistance in the country. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is the place that - Idlib is where, as we heard earlier, about - what? - 1.4, 1.5 million people are internally displaced from other government assaults. What are those people going to do? MARTIN CHULOV: Yeah, you're right. Look. This is the part of the country where people who have fled a regime, Russian-led offensive, over the last three years in particular have ended up. Some of them have refused to come to terms with the Syrian government and the so-called reconciliation deals, which did amount to starvation surrender sieges. And they have - rather than hand themselves over, they agreed to be exiled. MARTIN CHULOV: So right throughout the province - it's a densely packed corner of northwestern Syria where most of these people are at odds with the Syrian regime - now, where are they going to run to now? The U.N. has put forward an option of humanitarian corridors being opened up into regime territory. But everybody we speak to say the regime are the organization that we ran from. We are not going to cross the border back into Syrian government territory and risk detention, risk some form of retribution, especially in this current environment of total impunity. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So we know that Iran and Russia are pushing hard to help the Syrian regime retake Idlib. What is the posture from the other world powers, like the U.S. and Turkey, who also have a stake here? What is their position? MARTIN CHULOV: Well, we shouldn't be under any illusion here. Russia is calling the shots. The Russian Air Force has been decisive in every other conflict since 2015, and it will be so here. Russia and Iran, Syria's two main backers, demand a stake in what emerges from the ruins of Syria, whenever this war eventually does settle down. But Turkey has a lot to lose. If the northwest of the country does fall to the Syrians, and in a Russian-led offensive, then Turkey's position is fundamentally weakened. They say that they will not let this happen. They will not let Idlib turn into a giant lake of blood, as President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday. MARTIN CHULOV: But it's difficult to see how they can actually slow this process for now. The Russians are determined to press ahead with it. The Turks don't have much leverage. They haven't got much to bring to the table. So how this plays out in coming weeks is really anybody's guess. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is either the Syrian regime or Russia responding to the - what seem to be very legitimate fears of a bloodbath? MARTIN CHULOV: There was a three-way summit in Tehran on Friday just gone in which the geopolitics were richly debated but the humanitarian situation was not. And, as everybody knows, this is a desperate situation. As you say, 1.4 million people from elsewhere in the country - add to that another 1.5 million people who live in Idlib - where are they going to run to? The NGO estimates are that at least 700,000 will be internally displaced very quickly if any - a large-scale offensive is launched. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Do civilians there have any way out? MARTIN CHULOV: I think, from what we can tell - and we've been speaking to a lot of civilians inside the province - they are hoping that these - a Turkish zone of influence inside of Syria, which is to the east of where they are now, will be opened. If the Turks handed that over to internally displaced people, where are they going to go after that? And that's their fear. It's their fear that they will lose any traction or influence that they have in the north of the country if they allow this area to be filled with refugees. MARTIN CHULOV: But, at the end of the day, if a large-scale offensive is launched, and people are going to start moving - and they will - I do suspect that there'll be enormous pressure under the Turks to accept internally displaced people and exiles in their own country - in some cases, for a third or fourth time - to be allowed into the Syria that they control, which is just south of the Turkish border. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what is the endgame here for the Syrian regime? They retake this territory - let's say they do that. Then what? MARTIN CHULOV: Well, this is the thing. In some ways, when the Syrian regime is able to claim, nominally at least, that they have recaptured all of the country except for the northeast, where there is a nominal Islamic State presence, what sort of Syria will emerge from the ruins of this catastrophic war? It's a fact that Russia and Iran have led the way in terms of clawing back Assad's position right across the country, especially since September, October 2015, which is the first time the Russian Air Force became involved to the extent that they are. And ever since then, they've doubled down. MARTIN CHULOV: But both of those allies have invested billions of dollars of treasure and lots of blood of their own people as well in securing Assad. What are they going to want in terms of the national character? Who gets to define it? A Syria within the model that we're looking at with two allies who have invested so much is not going to be sovereign. It may notionally be so. It may be that Russia and Iran will allow the perception to be entrenched. But right through Damascus, right through the hearts of power, there is a significant influence being exerted by both sides, and they will want to define the terms of reconstruction, to define the terms of governance in many ways. And also, fundamentally, who gets to define the national character after so many years of war? And those questions are yet to be answered. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Martin Chulov of The Guardian. He's been covering the conflict in Syria since it began. We reached him in Beirut. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Martin, thanks so much for talking with us. MARTIN CHULOV: You're welcome.

Observers are expecting the Syrian regime to launch an offensive on Idlib, the rebels' last major stronghold. NPR's Michel Martin speaks to The Guardian's middle east correspondent Martin Chulov about how the offensive could be a decisive moment in the course of the Syrian Civil War.

Beobachter erwarten eine Offensive des syrischen Regimes gegen Idlib, die letzte große Hochburg der Rebellen. Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem Nahost-Korrespondenten des Guardian, Martin Chulov, dass die Offensive ein entscheidender Moment im Verlauf des syrischen Bürgerkriegs sein könnte.

《观察者》预计，叙利亚政府将对反对派最后一个主要据点伊德利卜发发起攻势。美国国家公共广播电台新闻的米歇尔·马丁对《卫报》的中东记者马丁·丘洛夫说，这场攻势可能是叙利亚内战进程中的一个决定性时刻。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We'd like to turn now to the story of one Syrian refugee who escaped the country and made it to Europe. Just three years ago, she was celebrated for helping rescue 20 asylum-seekers, but now, she's in a Greek jail. As Joanna Kakissis reports, aid workers say she is the victim of a growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Panos Moraitis founded the Greek non-profit Emergency Response Centre International at the end of 2015. A couple of months earlier, the maritime security specialist had choked up seeing a photograph of a dead Syrian toddler washed up on shore. PANOS MORAITIS: Back then, my wife was pregnant. And that picture started to haunt me. And being involved with preservation of life at sea by trade, I tried to find a way that I could help people drowning coming over to the Greek shores. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: With the help of private donations, Moraitis bought a couple of boats and SUVs and set up shop on the island of Lesbos. He hired a former Greek naval officer as the field director of the nonprofit known by its acronym, ERCI. PANOS MORAITIS: We were very, very cautious as an organization. We were vetting properly the volunteers. We were asking for criminal background checks, for their CVs. It was not a free-for-all, everyone who wanted to offer services would join ERCI. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: One of those volunteers was Sarah Mardini, a 23-year-old Syrian refugee with a story so epic it's being made into a movie. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Three years ago, she and her younger sister Yusra, who were elite swimmers in Damascus, were on a refugee boat that stalled off the coast of Lesbos. Sarah told the story in a speech in Budapest last year. SARAH MARDINI: There's waves and sea and water from all the sides. I jump in the water, and I pushed. That's simply what you do when you're stuck. My 17 years old sister - she jumped in the water. We ended up being in the water for three and a half hours, and we made it safely to Greece, thank god JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: The sisters eventually claimed asylum in Germany. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yusra went on to fame as a member of the refugee Olympic team and swam in the 2016 Rio Olympics. Sarah won a scholarship to Bard College in Berlin. She decided to volunteer in Greece to show that refugees are not victims. SARAH MARDINI: I didn't been the victim. I change it. I became the reason why I give hope to the others. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Sarah was one of more than 7,000 volunteers on the island of Lesbos. As she waited at the airport last month to return to Berlin, Greek police arrested her. Two other volunteers from the ERCI non-profit as well as the former field director have also been arrested. Police have charged them with crimes including money laundering, espionage, forgery and breaching immigration law. Moraitis, the group's founder, says he's in shock. PANOS MORAITIS: We're not guilty. The organization followed every rule that was asked and every Greek rule and European rule and best practices and code of conduct. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Sarah Mardini is now in a maximum security prison in Athens. Her lawyer, Haris Petsikos, says aid workers are being criminalised across Europe HARIS PETSIKOS: Throughout all Europe, there are many groups of people against the refugees. They don't want the refugees in their town, their country or in Europe. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: Mardini and the other defendants are expected in court as early as this week. JOANNA KAKISSIS, BYLINE: For NPR News, I'm Joanna Kakissis in Athens.

A Syrian refugee who was lauded for helping to rescue fellow migrants in 2015 has now been arrested by Greek police, accused of various charges including people smuggling.

Ein syrischer Flüchtling, der 2015 für seine Hilfe bei der Rettung von Mitmigranten gelobt wurde, wurde nun von der griechischen Polizei festgenommen, der verschiedene Anklagepunkte vorgeworfen werden, darunter Menschenschmuggel.

一名叙利亚难民因在2015年帮助营救其他移民而受到称赞，现在他已经被希腊警方逮捕，被控包括人口走私在内的多项罪名。

JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Jennifer Ludden in Washington. Neal Conan is away. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: There are many ways to measure the impact of the recession on individual Americans. The clearest marker of economic pain is probably the unemployment rate, stuck at nearly 10 percent and unlikely to budge for some time. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: But for the 90 percent of Americans in the workforce who still have a job, the economic downturn can often be measured another way, in their paycheck. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: For some employees, as colleagues have been fired, the workday has become longer. For others, a job in the great recession has meant a career change or a detour, and with this can come a pay cut. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: On this Labor Day, we want to know what's happened to your paycheck during the great recession. Our number here in Washington is 800-989-8255, our email address talk@npr.org. And you can also join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Later this hour, the buzz about the DEA's efforts to hire Ebonics translators. We'll talk with John McWhorter on The Opinion Page. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: But first, the recession and your pay cut - pay check. Steven Greenhouse is labor and workplace reporter for the New York Times and the author of "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker." He joins us by phone from his home in New York. And thank you so much for working with us here on this holiday. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): My pleasure, my pleasure. Nice to be here. CONAN: And also, for the last two decades, Parade magazine has conducted an annual look at American salaries and publishes the results in a series called "What People Earn." Since 2007, Lamar Graham has been the executive editor of Parade, and he joins us by phone from his office in New York. Thank you also for talking with us on this holiday. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Happy to be here. Thanks for having me. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So Lamar, let me ask you first. You've been at Parade for a decade, but you became executive editor just as the bottom was dropping out of the economy. How were the salary surveys you do, you know, in the first years different from what you see now? Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Well, let me say first of all, that Parade's "What People Earn" issue, it's not a scientific survey, and I don't want to give anybody that impression. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): When we came up with this idea about 20 years ago, it was about a recognition about economic voyeurism, if you will. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We all want to know. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Absolutely, absolutely. Salaries are the last taboo. People will tell you about their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, their sex life, their medical conditions. They won't tell you how much money they make. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): And do, you know, our aim was to find Americans in all 50 states who would, and, you know, and put them in the magazine and get people talking. And so, you know, that's the context here. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): But in 2007, in 2007, the issue that came out that year, we were starting to, you know, feel some of this, you know, that, you know, many people were kind of beginning to worry about their financial futures, and they didn't, you know, they weren't seeing the big raises they thought they would see because of the economic boom of the preceding years. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): But, I mean, it was a much lighter time then. I mean, I was laughing here, earlier, as I was looking back at the issue, and we've got a headline that says: Are you working too hard? The happiest employees are those who have flexibility and control over how much they work. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): You know, this year's main headline was: Americans are inventing new strategies to weather the recession, how we're making it work. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And volunteering for all the overtime they can get, probably. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, one, we've got a feature in there, you know: Help me find a job. So, I mean, it's a vastly different vibe between 2007 and 2010. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Are you seeing trends in certain professions, or was there some hot new profession that's kind of leveled off, or it doesn't seem to be the wave of the future anymore? Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Well, you know, as I said earlier, it's not a scientific survey. So before I, you know, make any pronouncements, I want to make that clear. But, you know, anecdotally, I mean, I've had my hands in the innards of this issue for about 10 years. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): And, you know, over the years, we had, you know, plenty of realtors who wanted to participate and show off their large salaries. Not so much this year. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): And, you know, one of the other interesting things was the research team that puts this together said that they've never had so many people drop out at the last minute. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): You know, after the issue comes out, thousands of people email us and say they want to participate in next year's, and then we come to them and say hey, we want to put your picture in a magazine that reaches 70 million people with your name and your salary, you know, people get cold feet. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): But this year, it was really overwhelming, and, you know, and a lot of the researchers told me anecdotally that people would say look, you know, my job's kind of tenuous. I don't need to be crowing about how much money I make. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Wow, that is interesting. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Yeah. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: That is interesting. Steven Greenhouse, can we turn bring you in here, and give us a sense of how this current recession is kind of fitting into a larger story about American wages. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): Sure. So American wages over the past decade haven't been doing very well. The last time wages for a typical American really boomed was in the late 1990s during the high-tech boom and when unemployment was at its lowest level in 40, 50 years, down below four percent. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): So, like, from 1995 to 1999, wages really boomed, and that was kind of unusual because in the previous two or three decades, median wages were flat. For men, wages, for the typical male worker, wages were actually declining over the previous two decades. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): Now, with the unemployment now nearly 10 percent, that generally weakens the bargaining power for workers. And over the past year and a half, median wages, after-inflation wages for the typical worker have been absolutely flat. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And I think that's one of the reasons so many people are saying we need a lower unemployment, not just to put more people back to work, but to give more leverage, more bargaining power for workers to get higher wages. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): If you're working somewhere and aren't happy with your salary, your chances of finding a better-paying job, you know, will increase of course when the economy picks up, when the unemployment rate drops. When there's more competition... JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So the economic... Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): When businesses are hungrier to hire people. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So the labor market sounds a lot like the housing market, in a way. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): Yes. When unemployment goes up, wages usually remain flat. And in this recession, in ways it's very different from the big recession, the last big recession in 1981, '82. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): According to a study done by some professors at Northeastern University, you know, corporate profits have gone up nearly $400 billion since the beginning of the recession. But, you know, wages are only up about $70, $80 billion, and that's almost the exact reverse from the 1982, '82 recession, when the nation was recovering from recession, wages went up far more than profits. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: How could corporate profits have gone up $400 billion in the middle of a recession? Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): Well, I mean, the recession has been over now for a while. But, I mean, since the beginning of the recession until now, you know, corporations have been cutting costs. Banks have recovered very nicely, thank you. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): I wrote a big story about corporations, even some corporations that are doing very well, that have, you know, cut wages for various workers. You know, there's a big story last week. The Kaiser Foundation found that, you know, that companies were pushing upon workers the costs of increased health care coverage and that, you know, companies are actually paying less for health care coverage than they had been and are foisting all the increased costs on workers. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): So that makes it harder for workers. At the same time, it actually ends up helping increase the corporate bottom line. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Is this something that companies just didn't do in the recession of the early '80s, or were there other things at play there? Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): They did that somewhat, but I think, you know, companies have gotten, you know, one might use the word tougher. One might use the word more sophisticated. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): You know, I think their you know, unions are much weaker now. Companies far more have the option of, you know, moving jobs to China or India or elsewhere. I think that's caused made it harder for American workers to, you know, demand raises. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): Another thing that's been happening, Jennifer, is that I think companies realize that, you know, they could lay off five percent of their people and kind of push their current workforce harder to, you know, do the same amount of work as when they had even more people. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Let's we already have a lot of callers on the line. Let's go to one now. John(ph) is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Hi, John. JOHN (Caller): Hi, how are you? Hi, everybody. I wanted to say hello, thank you for the opportunity to, you know, let me talk about let me just give you a little chronological, real quick, sense of how a modern immigrant, in this case it's me, have suffered the consequences of all kinds of changes in the United States. JOHN (Caller): I first came here in 1987, barely knew how to speak English, worked in a factory in New Jersey making $6.50 an hour building air ducts. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: $6.50. JOHN (Caller): Come again? JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: You said $6.50 an hour? JOHN (Caller): $6.50 in 1987, correct. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Okay. JOHN (Caller): The economy, as I remember, was just getting normal. It had just gotten out of the '80s, and Ronald Reagan was still on, and things were, you know, just again, I was new. I had no idea what was going on. JOHN (Caller): Worked my way up for a couple of years, and eventually started working slowly into the office, the clerical system, which I excel into it. Learn all the, of course, the computers, and the software boom came in the '90s, like the gentleman say, one of your guests. JOHN (Caller): And I was right in the middle of it, excelled right into it, learned all the new excelled into the clerical, clerical in software booming and computers, where I worked about, got about 10 years' worth in that, got to be making about $60,000 at a company. JOHN (Caller): Was doing great. I had two BMWs, house. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Bring us up to the present here, John. What's so that's where you were at the recession? JOHN (Caller): Well, running real quick. Came after the (unintelligible) 9/11 in that second so-called re-election for Bush. Things just slowly started slowing down. And between that and who knows what, all of a sudden, I found myself... JOHN (Caller): By the way, I got a helicopter certificate. So I just kept excelling, excelling, and I ran a little airport. And this is three years of what I was running a little airport. And now I am just simply driving a car, making 7.50. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Wow, almost back to where you started. JOHN (Caller): Excel myself from all the things, and I'm making 7.50. I just to want to give you an idea of what the modern immigrant is going now. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: That's a big cut there. John, thanks so much for calling. JOHN (Caller): I thank you so much. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Thank you. We are talking about what's happened to your paycheck during the great recession, and we will get some more of your calls in a moment. You can call us at 1-800-989-8255. Or send us an email. That address is talk@npr.org. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: I'm Jennifer Ludden, and this is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: This Labor Day, even more than in years past, the focus is squarely on jobs: finding one or keeping one. Even for many workers who have hung onto their jobs, the recession that began in 2007 meant cuts in pay or benefits. So tell us: What's happened to your paycheck during the great recession? Our number here in Washington is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can also join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. So tell us: Our guests are Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace correspondent for the New York Times, and Lamar Graham, executive editor of Parade magazine, which puts out its annual What People Earn report. So tell us: Lamar, could I ask you: Are you seeing certain jobs being hit the hardest in this recession, either in terms of layoffs or pay cuts? Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Hit the hardest, you know, I don't know if I could put my finger on any particular category. As I said earlier, I think, like, you know, realtors have had a really tough time, you know, over the time that I've been working on the issue. Like I said, we just didn't see nearly as many this year, and the salaries they were making were, you know, modest by comparison to what they were making a few years ago. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): I can say that, you know, on the other end of things that certain sectors seem to be holding a little bit, especially the medical-allied professions: pharmacy and pharmacy tech. Those jobs still seem to be there. And nurses, you know, we still seem to see those, you know, those kind of people participating in steady numbers and their salaries, you know, steady or going up a little. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Steven Greenhouse, I've got here something the Economic Policy Institute put out using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, looking at the highest, fastest-growing jobs, job and growth in wage from May 2006 to 2009. And just as Lamar said, their health industry figure is pretty big. Number one: home health aide. Then you've got food preparation, warehouse stock clerk, then medical assistant and registered nurse. All but the last, all but the nurse, seems to be pretty low-wage work there. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): You know, for years, the Labor Department in predicting, you know, what would be the fastest-growing jobs over the next decade, like seven out of 10 or six out of 10 of those jobs are very low-paying: home health aide, supermarket cashier, you know, stocker. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And one of the unfortunate things going on now in the, you know, in the recession and weak recovery is that a lot of the jobs in the middle, you know, the middle manager, the secretary, you know, jobs that paid $30, $40, $50, $60,000 a year, seem to be disappearing. And there seems to be strong growth in jobs that strong is the wrong word, but you know, where there's growth, there seems to be more growth at the bottom and more growth at the top. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): So unfortunately what's been happening, similar with what was happening to John of Hawaii, people had jobs, you know, he had a nice job making $60,000 a year driving his two BMWs I wish I could afford a BMW and now he's making $7.50 an hour. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And unfortunately, you know, the economy is so weak, and there's so much turnover and so many layoffs that a lot of people are tumbling down the career ladder and going from jobs making $50, $60, $70,000 to often half that. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): I read a recent story about people returning to school for continuing education to improve their career prospects, and I wrote about some laid-off white-collar workers who worked for Detroit's Big Three. And they knew they weren't going to work, you know, in the auto industry anymore. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And some went back to study to be certified nursing assistants for just $10 an hour, figuring that once they start there, they'll then study to become nurses and hopefully make, you know, $50,000 or $70,000 again. So there's a lot of turbulence in the job market right now. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): I would say that we found that, too, particularly in terms of, like, part-time employment. You know, in past years, we didn't include part-timers in the survey because we had so many full-time folks to choose from that we would say let's compare apples to apples. But so many of the people that we spoke with in the 2010 issue were working part-time that we decided, you know, we needed to include them. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): I think Lamar is exactly right. You know, there are two ways that people, or three ways that people are losing income. One is just to be laid off period. Two is, you know, some people are having to swallow three percent or five percent pay cuts. We're seeing that you know, a lot of cities and counties are demanding pay cuts right now. And the third issue is the one Lamar is talking about that, you know, when you were working full time, 40 hours a week, and you made, you often made pretty good money. But if they cut you back to 30 hours or 20 hours a week, you might be paid the same amount per hour, but your total pay is going to be cut, you know, by a quarter or half because you're working so many fewer hours. And that's stressing out a lot of families. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And at the same time, you know, a lot of families are suffering from, you know, cuts in income when, you know, they have a laid-off brother or son who graduated from college and can't find a job and moving back in. So you have families that have lower income, and at the same time, they have to support more individuals in the household. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Right. Let's bring another listening into the conversation. Scott(ph), you're in West Palm Beach, Florida. Hi there. SCOTT (Caller): Yes, hi, good afternoon. I just wanted to state, I kind of feel like I'm living in a constant state of economic paranoia. I've managed to keep my job over, you know, since the recession started. SCOTT (Caller): Income has been steady. I can't say there's been any big ups or downs in it. But I'm in a constant fear of when is the other shoe going to drop. I mentioned to someone before, my brother had to move to Missouri from Florida for work. I'm older. I'm in the early 50s. And I've got this huge concern is when is the bottom going to fall out. And I don't like living in that state. I didn't basically - go ahead. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: So you're not asking for a raise these days. SCOTT (Caller): No, no. I mean, today's Labor Day, and I'm driving home from work. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Did you get overtime? SCOTT (Caller): I don't ever say no, and I don't turn down overtime, not that I ever would have done that before. But it's a fear. There's a fear of I live in South Florida. Our house prices have dropped. And it's a fear. And I never, I don't remember that in my life. And that's how I feel now. SCOTT (Caller): I mean, we're still in a blessed country, but you don't know, at least, you know, in my view, when's the bottom going to fall out, or is it going to fall out even farther. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, Scott, well, thank you so much for calling. SCOTT (Caller): All right, thanks. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Let's go to another caller. William(ph) is in Orlando. We have a lot of Florida calls today. Hi, William. WILLIAM (Caller): Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my call. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Tell us your situation. WILLIAM (Caller): It's a little rough right now. To be succinct, I was earning close to $50,000 a year about three years ago. I'm in my mid 50s, and I was laid off from my job, or down-sized, you might say, gone through a couple of job changes since then, and nothing had worked out. WILLIAM (Caller): And currently, I'm earning minimum wage as a temporary worker driving a car at an auto auction here in Orlando. What's more interesting is I was finally able to land a job with a very good management company here at the local airport managing a restaurant there. They were just beginning to open. WILLIAM (Caller): And part of the procedure of getting that job was applying for security access. Unfortunately, the authority, the airport authority who took my application conveniently lost it, and the company that was offering me the position had to move on because of the expediency required to fill that position to open the restaurant. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Oh dear. WILLIAM (Caller): So I lost a very good job because of government bureaucracy. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Sorry for that. Sorry for that. Well, what's your long-term thinking? I mean, are you hopeful that things will turn around, or are you completely changing your career plans? WILLIAM (Caller): Well, I can't afford to change my career plans. I enjoy the industry that I'm in. And I'm always hopeful and always optimistic, contrary to my upbringing. My father was a consummate pessimist, but he was a very successful man. But so I kind of learned a few lessons from him. WILLIAM (Caller): But I'm hopeful. The Orlando area has a lot of opportunity here. It just hasn't turned around yet. But Florida, unfortunately, especially Central Florida has a somewhat significantly higher unemployment rate than the national average. I think we're closing on 12 percent right now. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, well, William, thanks for the call. WILLIAM (Caller): I appreciate your time, and thank you for taking my call. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: We've got an email here that speaks to maybe some of the anger that we have been hearing here as the, you know, debate, public debate during this recession. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Jason(ph) writes: It seems to me the CEOs are not hurting. To me, it's just a way for them to get richer and us to get poorer. The big lie is that it's because of so-called pressure from overseas. Soon, there will not be a middle class. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Steven Greenhouse, why is the middle kind of dropping out, and we see growth at the bottom and the top? I mean, it makes me think of the loss of manufacturing. Is there more to it? Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): I think part of it is that, Jennifer. Part of it is that a lot of, you know, we heard, you know, John of Hawaii talking about losing his software job. I think a lot of good, you know, middle-class, upper-middle-class software jobs and accounting jobs and design jobs that used to be done in the U.S. are increasingly moving to India. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): You know, my newspaper had a story recently about law jobs, you know, moving to India. And, you know, computers have replaced the jobs of secretaries, many secretaries and many accountants and many bookkeepers. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): And a lot of, you know, jobs in the middle, a lot of good-paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared. A lot of construction jobs have disappeared recently because of the housing burst. And, you know, a lot of the new jobs we're seeing are service-sector jobs that, you know, can't be sent overseas. And we have a fast-growing aging population, so we need more homecare aides and we need more nursing home aides, and we see a lot of - you know, there's a big demand for security guards, and, you know, there are all these people working in nail salons and hair salons. And these generally aren't jobs that pay very, very well. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Right. Let's go to Andrea in Berkeley, California. Hi, Andrea. ANDREA (Caller): Hi. How are you? JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: I'm good. Now, I'm reading you're a young OB-GYN, which is something we think of as very lucrative and a good stable field to go into, no? ANDREA (Caller): You would think so. When I went into medicine, all odds were that it was recession-proof. I graduated in 1997 from a good university, and I don't like to toot my own horn, but I'm a very good physician. I have plenty of work. The problem is getting paid for it. I work about 80 to 90 hours a week, and my total salary last year, take-home salary, was $56,000. I read it all over the place that doctors are making, you know, six-figure salaries, but I don't know any of them. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Huh. ANDREA (Caller): And a lot of solo practitioners are going out of business because we cannot unite in any kind of union to fight the insurance companies. So, for instance, an annual gynecology exam gets paid $45 by Medicare, and the guy down the street who does my smog check gets 70 bucks to stick his little thing in my tailpipe there. And all of the expectations have been upended in this recession. ANDREA (Caller): I've been working since I was 15. I have a very strong work ethic. I love my job, but I think I had every right to expect that I could be paying my bills at this point in my life. And I really admire Obama for taking on the insurance companies and the other big corporations, but I guess I just want everybody to know that, you know, I'm sitting outside the hospital today about to go make rounds, and I've talked to the nurses. They all make more money than me. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Oh, my goodness. ANDREA (Caller): They get breaks. They get benefits. They get vacation time. And I want everybody to know that if this continues, there aren't going to be solo practitioners for people to visit. Everyone's going to be going to a clinic. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Wow. Andrea, thank you for your... ANDREA (Caller): And if you look at The Wall Street Journal, you can see that about 20 percent of solo practitioners went out of business last year. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Hmm. ANDREA (Caller): And it's because we can't negotiate with the insurance company. Only groups can. Solo practitioners cannot. And I have a mole in a group that's in my town, and the people in the group can negotiate six to eight times the amount of money for the same exact service. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Wow. ANDREA (Caller): I just want everybody to know, you know, what's going on. This is something I don't think is being covered at all. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Right. It's a bit of - not just the economy, but you've got a lot of changes in the health care industry there going on. Andrea, thank you for the call. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Lamar Graham, if - we looked at your latest survey there at Parade magazine of what people earn. You know, if you can't make it big as a doctor these days - what was the top earner in your latest survey? Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Well, the very top earner - and, you know, we chose some of these for serendipity and for fun - but Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook. And we calculated his earnings in 2009 at about $3 billion. So he was stratospheric. You know, also up there, you know, don't cry for Tiger Woods. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): He made 110 million bucks. And John Stumpf, the CEO of Wells Fargo, made 18.7 million. Ellen DeGeneres was our biggest - one of our biggest entertainment figures, anyway: 35 million. And Glenn Beck made 23 million. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: And that was before his big exposure down on the Mall, right? Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Right. Now, in terms of, you know, ordinary people, I thought one of the most interesting in this year's survey was a guy in North Dakota who is a motel operator. And there's a massive boom in the petroleum biz going on up there, and workers flooding in from everywhere with no place to stay. And he made $440,000 operating a motel in North Dakota. So I was - you know, that was one that I was, you know, was very taken by. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Oh, you never know there. Mr. LAMAR GRAHAM (Executive Editor, Parade): Well, you know, and we also have a person who described himself as a professional sports handicapper - I'll, you know, leave it to you to decide what that means - who made $1.3 million. And maybe at the other end of the scale, we had a medical marijuana provider in Oregon who made only $17,000. Maybe, I shouldn't say only, but who made $17,000. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right, well, we've got an email here from Mary from Oakland. She works at a university, she says, and for the past three years, has received no salary increase. Last year, I took a mandatory 8 percent salary cut. My workload has significantly increased, and I am working longer hours for much less money. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: Steven Greenhouse, what - you know, looking ahead, I mean, for young people graduating today and starting out on their careers, how is this all going to impact them over the course of their career? Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): It's really a tough time to be entering the job market right out of college or right out of high school. And, you know, there have been studies done showing that if you enter the job market when unemployment's high, during a recession, you're going to start at lower salaries, and it's going to be very hard for you to catch up to people, you know, a few years older than you who, you know, started - went into the job market when the economy was booming. And it's hard to say what people should do. You know, improve your skills as much as possible, try to pursue fields that are very marketable, like becoming a nurse or teaching science, which is - or becoming a quant and do, you know, great analytical math for the Googles and Facebooks. Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): You know, Lamar's survey is extremely helpful. It's not just voyeuristic, but it really is also very informative in seeing, you know, what are good fields to pursue and what are not such good fields to pursue. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: All right. I think we have to leave it there. Steven Greenhouse is a labor and workplace reporter for The New York Times. Lamar Graham is executive editor of Parade Magazine. Thank you so much, both of you, for joining us. Coming up... Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workplace Reporter, New York Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"): It's nice to be here. Thanks. JENNIFER LUDDEN, host: ...next, the DEA wants to hire Ebonics translators. Is that a great idea or a terrible precedent? John McWhorter joins us on the Opinion Page. I'm Jennifer Ludden. It is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

Unemployment continues to hover above 9 percent. But for the 90 percent of the U.S. workforce with jobs, the recession's impact on paychecks is a mixed bag. Fewer co-workers can mean more hours for some, but for others, a cut in pay or perks. Reporters Steven Greenhouse and magazine editor Lamar Graham discuss the state of the American paycheck. Steven Greenhouse, labor correspondent, New York Times Lamar Graham, executive editor, Parade Magazine

Die Arbeitslosigkeit liegt weiterhin bei über 9 Prozent. Aber für die 90 Prozent der US-Arbeitskräfte, die einen Arbeitsplatz haben, sind die Auswirkungen der Rezession auf die Gehaltsschecks sehr unterschiedlich. Weniger Mitarbeiter können für einige mehr Arbeitsstunden bedeuten, für andere hingegen eine Kürzung des Gehalts oder der Vergünstigungen. Die Reporter Steven Greenhouse und Lamar Graham, Redakteur des Magazins, erörtern den Zustand des amerikanischen Gehaltsschecks. Steven Greenhouse, Arbeitskorrespondent, New York Times\nLamar Graham, leitender Redakteur, Parade Magazin

失业率继续徘徊在9%以上。但对于90%有工作的美国劳动力来说，经济衰退对工资的影响是好坏参半的。对一些人来说，更少的同事意味着更多的工作时间，对另一些人来说，则意味着工资或津贴的削减。记者史蒂文·格林豪斯和杂志编辑拉马尔·格雷厄姆讨论了美国的工资状况。史蒂文·格林豪斯，《纽约时报》劳工通讯员，拉马尔·格雷厄姆，《游行》杂志执行编辑

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: It's becoming ever tougher to make heads or tails of what's going on in the economy. You can find conflicting reports from analysts and economists everywhere. Some argue a double-dip recession is inevitable. Others insist we're on track for a slow but steady recovery. NEAL CONAN, host: Data doesn't add much clarity, either. Manufacturing is up. So is unemployment. Spending is flat. Consumers seem to be saving more. And the housing market remains terrible. Then we hear comparisons to Japan's lost decade. NEAL CONAN, host: In a moment, we appeal for help from the Planet Money team. What puzzles you about the economy? What do you want to understand? 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. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the program, we want to hear from the actors out there as Oscar winner Martin Landau joins us. You can email questions now. That address again is talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: But first, the economy. Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein of NPR's Planet Money join us from our bureau in New York. Nice to have you with us today. ALEX BLUMBERG: Nice to be here. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Thanks for having us. NEAL CONAN, host: And one thing that many people are worried about is jobs, jobs, jobs. That seems to be at the top of the agenda. Who wants to are we making any progress at all? ALEX BLUMBERG: Well, it doesn't seem like it. The unemployment rate is hanging pretty steady. It's about nine and a half. It's gone down a little from its highs of over 10 percent. But no, I mean, it's not coming down nearly as fast as anybody would like, and it's a little confusing to people, especially experts. NEAL CONAN, host: Especially me, too, even non-experts. Is any sector, I mean, we hear reports that manufacturing is picking up in the last couple of months. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Well, you know, it's important to look at the difference in manufacturing between how well the businesses are doing and how many jobs there are, right. So and this is a very long-term trend that predates the current recession, that the manufacturing industry in this country has actually been doing very well for a long time. But they've been doing very well by being high-tech, which requires fewer and fewer workers. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: So, you know, the places we've been seeing job growth throughout the recession have been primarily health care and education. Manufacturing is still way down from where it was. Construction has been hit very hard. NEAL CONAN, host: So a good year for robots is what you're telling me. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: It's a great job market if you're a robot. ALEX BLUMBERG: And for people who make robots. NEAL CONAN, host: And for people who make robots. ALEX BLUMBERG: But not people who are replaced by robots, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: And one is this one of those psychological spirals people are -employers are uncertain as to whether they should hire anybody until they see people spending more, and people don't want to spend more until they can see the economy going again and more people being hired? ALEX BLUMBERG: I mean, like anything, like everything in this economy, Neal, sort of your guess is as good as ours. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Short program today. We can all go home. ALEX BLUMBERG: But no, but I mean, that is the fear. I mean, that's the danger, that is the terrible cycle that policymakers are trying to prevent, that people are just sort of, like, they're afraid that nobody's going to buy. So they don't spend. And then nobody has a job, and then yeah, it just sort of reinforces itself. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And it is the case that corporations have a lot of cash, have a lot of cash that they're apparently not spending. So it does seem to be the case that they're sort of waiting and seeing. It's clearly the case that consumers are saving more money. So in a sense, they're waiting and seeing. And it's really hard to know at this point how do you break that cycle, right. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: I mean, we had a stimulus. You know, there's some debate. It clearly had some effect. And now there's sort of this beginnings of a debate over a second stimulus. And all of that goes to this issue that you're talking about, right, this kind of catch-22 where people are companies are waiting for people to spend, but people are waiting for companies to spend and hire more people, and it's very difficult to see how you break that. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right, and - yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: I was just going to say: Isn't there another part of that cycle? The banks seem to have a lot of money, which they're not loaning. ALEX BLUMBERG: Yes. That's the charge. They are loaning it. They're just not loaning it to consumers. They're loaning it to governments, specifically the U.S. government. So the U.S. so banks are borrowing a lot of money, and then they're actually investing it a lot in Treasury bonds. ALEX BLUMBERG: So they're not making consumer loans, but they're actually because it's very safe to lend to the government. So it's easier to make money lending it to the government. NEAL CONAN, host: Because the government gets to print money. ALEX BLUMBERG: Because the government can print money, right. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And it's also the case, you know, that a lot of households and small businesses are in what economists call deleveraging right now. They took on too much debt during the boom, and so the last thing they want right now is more debt. So part of the reason you're seeing less lending from banks is because there is less demand for debt from consumers. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right. NEAL CONAN, host: We want to get some questions from those consumers, and if there's any bankers in the audience or any employers, too, we'd love to hear from you, 800-989-8255. What puzzles you about this economy? Email us, talk@npr.org. We'll start with Jay(ph), Jay calling us from Chesapeake in Virginia. JAY (Caller): Thank you very much for taking my call. And I have been wanting to ask this question for the longest time, and nobody has seemed to have even talked about it. JAY (Caller): But ever since the Reagan revolution and trickle-down economics, it's obvious that the wealthier got the wealthy got wealthier. But for the average working American, who worked 40, 50, 60 hours a week, two jobs, everybody in the family is working, wages remained flat. All we got in return was credit-based wealth. Everybody got multiple credit cards. I was getting five or six offers a week, teaser rates of zero percent, one percent, so on and so forth. JAY (Caller): But now that all that credit-based wealth has just evaporated and gone forever, middle-class America and working America and the working poor have been left with actually all the only thing that they have left are their wages. They're suddenly realizing hey, I really wasn't making that much money, I just had a lot of credit-based wealth. NEAL CONAN, host: Jay, I'm hearing a lot of analysis there. What's the question? JAY (Caller): Why isn't anybody talking about what is the effect of this credit-based wealth evaporated have on the economy? How much of the economy was supported by consumers spending this wealth that they never really had? And I'll listen to the radio. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, thank you. Oh, I hung up on him. ALEX BLUMBERG: I think if you're asking about what the effect is, you're looking at the effect of what that was right now. Basically, what the reason we went through what we went through is a lot of that credit-based wealth evaporated, and it, you know, ran us into one of the worst recessions in history. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And in particular, you saw it in the housing market, right. Lending standards got easier and easier. So you saw people at the lower end of the income spectrum being able to borrow a lot of money to buy a house, and then, as the bubble inflated, to be able to actually pull cash out of that house in the form of home equity loans. NEAL CONAN, host: And... ALEX BLUMBERG: Right. And the analysis that your caller was putting forth, I've heard from, you know, from Chicago, you know, economists and many experts, as well. This is a big, key problem. ALEX BLUMBERG: You know, during - in the last decade, people had a lot more access to credit. That's where they were that was fueling their spending. Spending is a huge part of the economy. That credit is not going to come back. The world isn't going to lend us as much money as it was lending us before. So people aren't going to have as much access to credit. And so where is that consumption going to come from? That's a big question. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's a big question from Ken(ph) by email: Everybody talks about this-and-that index and other numbers. What is the economy? ALEX BLUMBERG: Oh man. These are tough. So the economy is basically everything that everybody makes and does and sells. So it's everything that people make and sell, and it's everything that people do and sell, so services and goods that people make and sell. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And I mean, to the extent that economists boil it down to a number, which is obviously, you know, ridiculously reductive, but we're journalists, right. It's our job to be ridiculously reductive. That number is basically GDP, gross domestic product. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: So when people say the economy is growing or the economy shrank, usually what they mean is GDP is growing or GDP shrank. And, you know, over the last several years, what we saw was, well, typically, historically, GDP grows, right, in ordinary times. In a recession, typically GDP is shrinking. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: We saw GDP shrink through 2008 and into 2009, and then in general, it grew through the end of 2009 and in the beginning of this year. And now we're seeing GDP growth slow again. NEAL CONAN, host: And if it goes into negative territory that would be the greatly feared double-dip. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: More or less. You know, interestingly enough, the way we decide officially in this country if there's a recession is there's this group of experts, and they get together, and they say yes, it's a recession. And then they say yes, the recession is over. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And GDP is probably the most important indicator there, but really it's up to them. Ultimately, it's a subjective, qualitative thing. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, let's see if we can get another caller on the line. Let's go to Jennifer(ph), Jennifer from Kansas City. JENNIFER (Caller): Hi, thanks for taking my call. NEAL CONAN, host: Sure. JENNIFER (Caller): I had just a couple of comments and then a question. My comments are that I am in the in an odd situation in that I've been sort of a victim of the economy but also benefitted from it. JENNIFER (Caller): I've lost my job, but now I a couple of months ago, now I'm self-employed. I'm making more money than I was before. My husband and I are both self-employed, and we're ready to, you know, to buy a house, to move, to do some different things. And we can't do any of that because of the impact of the bad economy now that we can't get a loan. You know, banks won't look at us because we don't fit a certain profile and that sort of thing. JENNIFER (Caller): So, you know, I know other people are in my - similar situation to me because they've had to be, you know, sort of inventive after this whole, you know, job issue. But my question is: How can we impact the economy positively if we're sort of, you know, hamstrung? NEAL CONAN, host: Spend yourself into debt. JENNIFER (Caller): But that's the thing. We paid off all of our debt. NEAL CONAN, host: Congratulations. JENNIFER (Caller): We look better on paper, and yet, you know, we can't qualify for a loan because we're now self-employed. ALEX BLUMBERG: So it's a question of you can put down a down payment, but you just can't get a loan because you don't fit into the conforming loan package? JENNIFER (Caller): Yeah, exactly. ALEX BLUMBERG: Yeah, right. So you would need to get a separate... JENNIFER (Caller): So how can we change the housing market? ALEX BLUMBERG: Right, right. NEAL CONAN, host: Good luck. JENNIFER (Caller): Yeah, thank you. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: I mean, there is, you know, there is this interesting reassessment going on right now about this whole model that we've had as policy for a long time in this country, which is more homeownership is better, right. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And one of the things people are saying right now is oh, wait, if everybody owns their home, it's harder to move. You know, if you own your home in a city and jobs are disappearing in that city, and you want to go move somewhere else, you're sort of tied down by a home, whereas if you have renters, they can go where the jobs are. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: So it's an interesting argument against the notion that it's always better when more people own their homes. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right. But what you - what that caller is talking about is the classic situation that we are in post-financial bust. There are what we had before was the world - everybody in the world was rushing to lend American homeowners money so that they could buy houses, and they were willing to lend it on very, very easy terms with very little down payment. ALEX BLUMBERG: And now, they've seen the folly of that strategy, and so now people are pulling back. They're probably pulling back too much. And so now there's just very little money out there for people who don't fit into very specific categories. NEAL CONAN, host: But Jennifer, we're very pleased that both you and your husband are doing better than you did before. So congratulations on that. JENNIFER (Caller): Yeah, thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. We're trying to make sense of this up-and-down economy with Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein, part of NPR's Planet Money team. What puzzles you about the economy? What do you want to understand? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: As you may have heard earlier today, another oil rig has exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil is reported in the water. We'll have an update for you in about 20 minutes. So stay tuned for that. When we hear about news of the economy, we tend to get a lot of numbers but not a lot of context: unemployment near 10 percent, sales of existing homes down 27 percent, retail sales up more than four percent. When we hear about news of the economy, we tend to get a lot of numbers but not a lot of context: What does it mean? Where the economy is headed, whether your job is at risk or your retirement, what puzzles you about the economy? What do you want to understand? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. When we hear about news of the economy, we tend to get a lot of numbers but not a lot of context: For answers, we're talking with Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein with NPR's Planet Money. You can find them at npr.org/money. That's what they report on. It's not what they make. NEAL CONAN, host: Anyway, let's go next to Barrow(ph), Barrow's with us from Newton in New Jersey. BARROW (Caller): Hi. I'm calling because we are in what is typically a recession-proof business: renovations, kitchen and bathrooms. And at the beginning of this whole mess, we were absolutely dead in the water. BARROW (Caller): However, since earlier March, since early May, we've had a big uptick. We're doing decidedly better, and I think what happened was originally, people thought that it was a depression and were terrified to spend any money. Now, I think they've decided, as they usually do in recessions, to fix up rather than move or move on. BARROW (Caller): Okay, my concern is we hear so much about double-dip, we hear so much negative comment. And since consumer confidence is such a big part of what the economy turns out to be, I'm concerned that there is a political necessity at work here to make the current situation seem so much worse than it actually could be by constantly talking down the economy. ALEX BLUMBERG: I think this gets to something that we were talking about before, about what does that mean if we're going to have a double-dip recession. And I think sometimes people think: Does that mean that we're going to go through what we just went through? ALEX BLUMBERG: And what we just went through was a whole bunch of things, which a recession was one component. We went through a financial crisis. We went through a very scary time when a whole bunch of businesses went bankrupt. ALEX BLUMBERG: We went through, you know, and I think whether or not we go into a technical recession again or not, I think it's very unlikely that we're going to go through anything like what we went through before. I don't think there's going to be whole industries having to be bailed out. I don't think there's going to be I don't think that the unemployment rate is going to go up another five percentage points. ALEX BLUMBERG: So I think it's the difference between right now, the unemployment rate is around nine and a half percent. If we go into another recession, maybe it'll go up a little bit more. But even if we don't, I don't think it's going to go down that fast, either, and that's the confounding thing. NEAL CONAN, host: But we're talking I think what Barrow is asking about is psychology. In the next two months, we're going to hear the phrase job killing at the rate of infinity per hour. Is this talking down the economy? ALEX BLUMBERG: I mean... BARROW (Caller): That's what I'm asking. ALEX BLUMBERG: Yeah, I think I mean, I don't there's a big debate about whether you can, you know, the confidence is definitely a big part of it. Like, can you you know, so confidence is a big part of the economy, and whether people feel confident in the future, that's why they spend money, and if they don't feel confident in the future, they're going to save money. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And, you know, the economy is always politicized, and people take credit for things that they don't deserve credit for, and they get blamed for things they don't deserve blame for. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And I think you can say that in a pretty nonpartisan way, right. I mean, there are... ALEX BLUMBERG: But Barrow, you're asking is an opportunistic politician going to ruin my business? That's basically what you're worried about, right? Are they going to talk down the economy? BARROW (Caller): Actually, the business of the country, the business of the country. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right, and your business in particular. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, boy, I hope not. BARROW (Caller): I think they just did it last time around. So I'm wondering if they're going to do it again. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: The economy is not in great shape. You know, I think it's fair to say that in an apolitical way. I mean, if you look at GDP growth, if you look at unemployment, if you look at the inventory of unsold houses sitting on the market, there are lots of signs that the economy is not strong right now. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And, I mean, I think that's a fair, apolitical statement. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Barrow, we wish you luck and that renovations continue there in New Jersey. BARROW (Caller): Thank you so much. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Here's a tweet from SplinteredBoard(ph), and I guess this goes to the question of politicians getting credit or blame: How is it that it was so easy for Ronald Reagan to turn the economy around, but Obama is having so much trouble? Apples and oranges? ALEX BLUMBERG: Yes, I think apples and oranges. I think when Reagan came into office, there were a lot of things that were there was a much higher tax rate, a much higher marginal tax rate than there is right now. There were a lot of really growth-inhibiting regulations on the books that, you know, things like banks couldn't, the amount of interest that they could give you on your deposits was set by law. So he was able to get rid of some of those real economy-inhibiting regulations. NEAL CONAN, host: It also didn't happen instantly, but anyway. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right. Yeah. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: It's also the case that the recession of the early '80s was actually consciously induced by the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates significantly in order to choke off inflation. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And so they essentially knew that they were going to shove the economy into a recession. It was just something they had to do. And because they sort of did it consciously to begin with, they were able then to pull interest rates back down, and the economy responded as you would think it would in a textbook. It came back. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And in this instance, it's been much less predictable. It's been much less amenable to responses from the Fed and in many ways a much more dramatic crisis than what we saw in the early '80s. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Lois(ph), Lois with us from Denver. LOIS (Caller): Hello. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. ALEX BLUMBERG: Hi. LOIS (Caller): Hi. What perplexes me is that we're still stuck on an economic paradigm that's based on limited resources. We're based still on oil and fossil fuels and all these consumer goods that are using the resources that will be depleted. My question is: Why aren't we investing more - you know, since you said earlier the government is the one that's able to secure a lot of the lending. Like, what if the government invested in companies that are producing renewable energy, the infrastructure, the technology? It may provide jobs and be a product that we can export into the world, both things that can fuel our economy. Why aren't we doing why aren't we shifting our paradigm to something renewable? ALEX BLUMBERG: Well, I think there is I think there is a lot of talk of doing just that, and I think the Obama administration seems to be trying to do that. NEAL CONAN, host: A fair part of the stimulus was devoted to that. ALEX BLUMBERG: Yeah, a fair part, yeah, exactly. You know, but it's not, it's not as easy as it may sound. I mean, the problem, as I understand it, with shifting over, we use a lot of energy right now, and to get anywhere near the amount of so basically to make anywhere near the amount of energy that we're already using through some of these alternative measures, it's just not possible. And if it was possible, it would cost a lot more. So... LOIS (Caller): Fuel is subsidized, oil is subsidized by the government. Could we shift that over to renewable energy? NEAL CONAN, host: They are heavily subsidized by the government. ALEX BLUMBERG: Yeah, renewables are being subsidized. So I think the answer is, I mean, is it happening? It seems to be happening. Is it happening as fast as it could? Probably not. ALEX BLUMBERG: There are a lot of entrenched special interests that probably wish it were not happening at all. But even if it was happening as fast as humanly possible, even if every single, I think, you know, thing that the government could throw at shifting us over to a new energy paradigm, it was doing. I mean, I think it just takes I think it's a decades-long process, not an overnight process. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: I mean, it seems to me that more broadly, the notion that there is some single silver bullet, whether it's energy or whether it's lowering mortgage rates or whether it's, you know, committing more to traditional infrastructure, whether it seems like there is not any single thing that, oh, if the government just flipped this switch, they could fix the economy. ALEX BLUMBERG: Right. Gasoline is a pretty miraculous energy carrier, unfortunately. And so it's hard to find something that's going to match it in just terms of just, like, getting bang for the buck. And so that's yeah, it's tricky. NEAL CONAN, host: Lois, thanks. LOIS (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for the call, appreciate it. Here's an email from Denise(ph) in Texas: I am puzzled why we hear so much doom and gloom on the economy. Are we in a bubble here in Texas? The restaurants are full during the week. The mall parking lots are full. Everyone looks like they're spending money. NEAL CONAN, host: My husband has a small business, 30 years, as a tile contractor for higher-end newer homes, his business has picked up dramatically after the scare. He's having to work on the weekends, as well as his crews. NEAL CONAN, host: I work for a major bank. They're hiring the contingent workers as permanent left and right. You can't find a parking spot if you're not here 20 minutes early. Maybe we're just luckier over here in Texas because we were not part of the housing bubble. ALEX BLUMBERG: You well, I will say this about Texas. Texas was not part of the housing bubble because Texas, as I understand it, had a housing bubble a decade earlier that they learned their lesson from. And so they did not take - a lot of banks in Texas did not make any of the same loans that people were making in California and Florida. ALEX BLUMBERG: So yeah, so Texas had learned its lesson during the bust it went through and didn't make the same mistakes the second time around. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to this is Tom(ph), Tom with us from Eugene in Oregon. TOM (Caller): Hi, thanks for taking my question. NEAL CONAN, host: Sure. TOM (Caller): I've seen a few articles that pointed to the 1986 Tax Reform Act as the start of our homeowner problem. The act eliminated credit card interest as an itemized tax deduction and replaced it with home equity loans. And in the course of the next 10 or 20 years, people's true home equity gradually declined as they took out more and more equity loans for, you know, leisure purchases and also to pay off credit cards. TOM (Caller): And there was an article in the Journal that talked about a bank that came up with some software that actually allowed them to mine the data of mortgage holders and figure out which ones had the best equity, and they were solicited for home equity loans. NEAL CONAN, host: Hmm. Well, can we nail the source of the problem to the change in those regulations back in 1986? JACOB GOLDSTEIN: It's certainly clear that during the housing boom of the first several years of this century, there was this huge push to home equity loans and to refinancing in general. And in fact, lots of people were given mortgages where the whole idea of the mortgage is, well, it's going to reset and be a lot more expensive in a couple years, but you can just refinance then. And there was a sort of perverse incentive operating, which was even if a mortgage wasn't in the best interest of the borrower, it might generate more fees for the people giving the loans. And so we certainly saw this incredible kind of churn and bankers getting people to pull money out of their house, in some instances when it wasn't in people's interest even to do so. ALEX BLUMBERG: And getting to the idea of, like, whether this law, you know, actually led - without this law, would this have happened, I think probably. I don't think you can pin it to one law. I think it was a confluence of factors. But there's no question that the tax code does encourage homeownership. And the fact that you can deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes and the interest on a home equity loan from your taxes, definitely creates an incentive for you to take out a larger home equity loan than you otherwise would, or buy a larger house than you otherwise would, or perhaps to even buy a house when maybe you wouldn't. And so - yeah. NEAL CONAN, host: And isn't it true that both the Clinton and second Bush administrations passed regulations that made it easier for people to qualify for loans? ALEX BLUMBERG: Yes, yes. No question. And there was a big push in this country towards, you know, that homeownership is, you know, the ownership society and homeownership is going to be something that's going to be good for a society as a whole. And so there was several - there was many and many incentives that government has put in place to encourage people to buy homes, and I think now people are taking a second look at those incentives. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And really, I mean, it goes back all the way to the Depression, right, where you have the origins of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was kind of this implicit subsidy the government set up to make it easier for people to buy homes. You know, a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage that you can pay off whenever you want is an incredible deal. And it is only possible because of, essentially, the largesse of the federal government, and ultimately it led to this huge bailout of Fannie and Freddie, which is probably digressive from what we're talking about today but ultimately relevant. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Tom, thanks very much for the question. We're talking about the economy. What's up? You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And let me reintroduce Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein, both part of NPR's Planet Money team. They join us from our bureau in New York. And can I ask you about the Japanese analogy, not the title of the latest thriller, but indeed, an economic comparison between the United States now and Japan in what 25, 30 years ago? ALEX BLUMBERG: Yeah, the lost decade. I think people make this - so this is basically a period in Japanese history where they had deflation, and I think that's when people are worried about a lost decade here, that's what they're worried about. They're worried about that we will actually enter a deflationary period. ALEX BLUMBERG: And I think people make the comparison because it started the same way. They had a huge property bubble. That bubble burst. And then they had decades of slow or no - of negative growth or slow growth and where nothing sort of increased in value, and in fact, things lost value. Now, Jacob had a very clear example of why that's a bad thing, deflation is a bad thing. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Right. So I mean the basic example is if you think - if you're going to buy, say, a car, if you're going to buy anything today and you think it's going to be cheaper in six months or in a year, then you might just wait. You might just say, you know what, I'm just going to keep that money under my mattress and wait for a year until that thing is cheaper. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: And in what I think is a pretty clear is that just feeds on itself, right? Then everybody stops buying things. The price of things fall, and it's this sort of juiced-up example of the kind of chicken-and-egg thing we're talking about in the economy now. Nobody buys things and so the economy essentially falls apart. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email question from Drew(ph) in Columbus. What effect would the expiration of the Bush tax cuts have on the economy, and what would be the effect if we didn't let them expire? These were temporary tax cuts passed in the Bush administration. They expire at the end of this year. President Obama wants to keep the ones for the middle class and let the ones for people that earn over $250,000 a year expire. Unclear as what's going to happen politically - a lot depends on the election. But anyway, what would be the effect on the economy if they did expire? JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Well, I mean, you can think of tax cuts as a kind of stimulus with the basic idea that, you know, your leaving people with more money. If people have more money, they're going to spend more money, and that stimulates the economy. So if you allow the cuts to expire and the tax rate goes up, that's sort of an anti-stimulus, right? That's the basic idea. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Now, you can make sort of finer points about, well, there may be types of tax cuts that are better targeted than the Bush tax cuts. For example, people have talked about a temporary cut in the payroll tax that businesses have to pay when they hire people. This is a very direct way you can incentivize businesses to hire people. I mean, practically speaking, it seems quite likely certainly that the Bush tax cuts on people making less than 200 or $50,000 a year, those will be extended, right? And the political debate is going to be over sort of the margins, right? The cuts on the people at the high end. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, then the - well, it could get tied up in arguments. We're not going to pass anything unless we pass what you want. So compromise may not be possible here, but is this - some people say that the higher tax cuts include a lot of small businesses. Is that right? They report as individuals? ALEX BLUMBERG: Yes, that - I mean, that's entirely possible. Yeah, absolutely. And so - and opinion is really - I mean, the opinion is really divided. I mean, this is like - this is - talk about - this is maybe one of the thornier issues that... ALEX BLUMBERG: ...you - that we've touched into, like, what would be economic effect of letting those tax cuts expire? And there's a huge camp that says it would be catastrophic and then there's another camp that says, actually, in terms of, like, if you want - if you - what you want to do is to stimulate spending, tax cuts aren't even the best thing to do. There's other things that you can do that are better. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, I hope we're a little bit less confused than we were half an hour ago. ALEX BLUMBERG: I hope so too. NEAL CONAN, host: Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein, thank you both very much for being with us today. ALEX BLUMBERG: Thanks a lot, Neal. JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And you can find out a lot more about what they cover if you go to npr.org/money. They're on NPR's Planet Money team. NEAL CONAN, host: Coming up, we'll talk with Martin Landau about his six-decade career on movies and TV. Stay with us. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

Experts disagree on the path the U.S. economy will take in upcoming months. Manufacturing is up, as is unemployment. Personal spending continues to drag, and the housing market remains weak. Alex Blumberg and Jacob Goldstein of NPR's Planet Money talk about what to expect in the coming months.

Experten sind sich nicht einig, wie sich die US-Wirtschaft in den kommenden Monaten entwickeln wird. Die Produktion steigt, ebenso die Arbeitslosigkeit. Die privaten Ausgaben sind weiterhin rückläufig, und der Immobilienmarkt bleibt schwach. Alex Blumberg und Jacob Goldstein von Planet Money bei NPR sprechen darüber, was sie in den kommenden Monaten zu erwarten ist.

专家们对美国经济在未来几个月要走的道路意见不一。制造业在崛起，失业率也在上升。个人支出仍是累赘，房地产市场依然疲软。美国国家公共电台《金钱星球》的亚历克斯·布伦伯格和雅各布·戈德斯坦讨论了在未来几个月里将会发生的事。

NOEL KING, HOST: First up today, there is domestic fallout from President Trump's meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin. DAVID GREENE, HOST: He had a joint press conference after their meeting yesterday. President Trump refused to side with the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous assessment that there was Russian interference, an attack on American democracy, during the 2016 election. And the reaction here has been swift, negative and bipartisan. Arizona's Republican Senator John McCain called it, quote, "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory," end quote. Former House speaker and Trump loyalist Newt Gingrich tweeted, (reading) it is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected immediately. NOEL KING, HOST: And Democrats were not exactly holding back either. NPR's national political correspondent Mara Liasson is with us now. NOEL KING, HOST: Good morning, Mara. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. So we have outrage, and it is bipartisan outrage. The president is set to meet with lawmakers today in the wake of all this. What do you think is going to be on their minds? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: I think what's going to be on their minds is what's on a lot of people's minds - why? Why, when the president is so eager and willing to attack or undermine our allies - NATO, the EU, the G-7, Angela Merkel, Theresa May - why does he refuse to ever offer a scintilla of criticism to Vladimir Putin? I can't imagine what the scene in that meeting is going to be unless they decide to pull their punches, which is possible. But Donald Trump never backs down. He never apologizes. So that meeting could be confrontational, or they could just move on to talking about the Supreme Court nominee. NOEL KING, HOST: (Laughter) To be a fly on the wall. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Yeah. NOEL KING, HOST: Mara, I want to play a piece of tape from President Trump's Helsinki news conference. He was asked directly by a reporter - who do you believe about Russian election interference? - meaning do you believe U.S. intelligence officials, or do you believe President Putin's denials? And here's what the president said. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: All I can do is ask the question. My people came to me. Dan Coats came to me and some others. They said they think it's Russia. I have - President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. NOEL KING, HOST: I don't see any reason why it would be. I mean, given what we know from months of investigation and indictments, including statements by the president's own director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, who was mentioned there. How can the president continue to make this claim? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: I can't explain that. People say - oh, he's still sensitive about his victory, anything that tends to discredit it. But I think we're beyond that. And he just said - my people came to me, Dan Coats, and said they said they think it's Russia. Those indictments did much more than that. They said that the president's own Justice Department is prepared to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in public, in a courtroom, that the president of Russia has been lying to Donald Trump. NOEL KING, HOST: What consequences does a statement like that for the president do for our intelligence agencies and how they do their jobs? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: I think it has a lot of consequences. People have been talking about whether Dan Coats can continue to work in the administration now that he's been thrown under the bus. NOEL KING, HOST: Yeah. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: There are consequences for other players. Vladimir Putin, does he feel he has a green light? NATO, this is just what they feared - terrible meeting with NATO, then on to be chummy with Vladimir Putin. Do they go forward thinking that the U.S. is no longer an ally that can be trusted? There are a lot of consequences. Does Congress move to protect the Mueller investigation now, something that... NOEL KING, HOST: Yeah. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: ...They've been unwilling to do? NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Mara Liasson with a lot of questions and some answers. Thanks so much, Mara. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Thank you. NOEL KING, HOST: All right, we're going to take a look now at how this Trump-Putin summit played in Russia. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah, the country's official government news agency is reporting that Russia's top diplomat called the outcome of the Helsinki summit, quote, "better than super." That is the official take. But like any politician, Vladimir Putin also has to take his own public into consideration. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Moscow correspondent Lucian Kim is with us. Hi, Lucian. LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: All right, so one thing, Lucian, that has made President Putin so popular in Russia is this idea that he is making Russia a force on the world stage again. Is that what you're hearing this morning after this summit? LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Oh, well, you know, it was the main news of course on the primary state TV channel because they'd said the whole world was following this summit. They called the results substantive and productive. Putin was really shown as, you know, a statesman solving world problems with the leader of the most powerful country in the world. He was on evening talk shows last night getting a first take. Some of the speakers actually called the summit a breakthrough. And one of them said, you know, critics back in the U.S. should take either a tranquillizer or cyanide because all that happened was two leaders met and held normal talks. NOEL KING, HOST: A tranquilizer or cyanide - OK (laughter). NOEL KING, HOST: Let me ask you something. These allegations of Russian meddling, interference, in the U.S. campaign in 2016 - does the Russian media actually report on those allegations? LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I mean, all of these negative news stories involving Russia, whether it's the poisoning of the former Russian double agent in England or doping during the Olympics or election interference, these things are really covered on state media - because they feed the narrative that Russia is besieged by enemies who are trying to defame Russia. So in that sense, Donald Trump looks very sympathetic to a Russian audience because he's siding with Putin. And I think for most of the casual consumers of TV news in Russia, which is mostly run by the government, that really resonates. NOEL KING, HOST: Because President Trump did not take a firm stand yesterday against this Russian interference in U.S. politics, do you think that's likely to make Vladimir Putin try it again, try more of it? LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Well, Putin is in a very delicate situation. The level of detail in those indictments on Friday showed him what the U.S. intelligence is capable of. So even if he wants to deny it or equivocates, these are not vague accusations. And he know that Trump's own intelligence chief, Dan Coats, holds Russia responsible for interference. So for right now, it might be a good idea for Russia just to keep its head down. NOEL KING, HOST: (Laughter) Keep its head down. NOEL KING, HOST: Let me ask you one more question about Putin. Russia's had a couple of weeks of very good PR. It hosted this World Cup; it went great. But you've reported that Putin has had some domestic political problems. What's up there? LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: That's right. Well, polls show that Russians want Putin to focus more on domestic issues, despite all the international prestige he's clawed back. The government wants to raise the retirement age, which is highly unpopular. So it's possible that once all this euphoria wears off, you know, people will notice that nothing has really concretely improved in their lives. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Lucian Kim. Thanks so much, Lucian. LUCIAN KIM, BYLINE: Thank you. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. In Nicaragua, student protesters are regrouping this week. The government there tried to steamroll a large protest camp over the weekend. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah, these protests have been going on since mid-April. Students have been protesting these changes to a public pension plan that touches much of the population in Nicaragua. The government's main response has been violence. And almost 300 people have died in clashes so far. That's according to human rights groups. The protesters now want President Daniel Ortega removed from office. And the attacks over just this past weekend killed at least a dozen people across the country and also pinned some protesters inside a church for 15 hours. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Mexico and Central America correspondent Carrie Kahn has been following all of this. Carrie, good morning. CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: So as David mentioned, this weekend, these protests escalated into this dramatic 15-hour siege inside of a church. Witnesses were describing in real time hearing gunfire and mortars in the air all night. I mean, how did we get to this point? CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Sure. The church is located at the far end of the National Autonomous University in Managua, and that's where students have been holed up for the last about two months. They've set up barricades, and they've been fighting with pro-government forces and police. And they have a rudimentary field hospital. Like you said, on Friday night, government forces pinned down about 200 students on the campus. And they took cover in that church in this gun battle, a very vicious one that killed two students, continued through the night. High-level bishops in the Catholic Church desperately tried to negotiate with government officials to let the students out. And finally, in the early morning, they were bussed out to waiting relatives and cheering supporters. CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: And then on Sunday, there was more violence in some communities outside the capital, especially in the city of Masaya where residents have set up barricades. And they've been fighting off paramilitary groups there. The government launched what they called Operation Clean-Up. And that was to remove these barricades, which they say are hurting local businesses and life in the area. And human rights groups say at least 10 people died in those skirmishes. NOEL KING, HOST: I want to ask you about the man behind this crackdown, Daniel Ortega. He's led the country for a decade - or he did lead the country for a decade when the Sandinista rebels took power in '79. He's been president again since 2007. What is Ortega saying about these protests? Is he worried? CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: Well, in public, he doesn't say a lot - in government, official news sites. He and his wife, who is the vice president and chief spokesperson for the country, they've called these students terrorists and criminals. And they point to the number of police that have died during the crisis and damages to buildings. They say they found weapons on campus and that is all proof that the protesters are illegitimate and need to be stopped. CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: You know, I've reached out several times to the government for a comment on their increased violence and rising death toll. And I'll tell you, Ortega's wife, Rosario Murillo, has written back. And oddly, all she does is keep thanking me for my interest. The response feels very cynical. But he and his wife have really consolidated power in the courts, the congress, media, everything in the country. And the protests, which started back in April, were just this opposition to Social Security tax increases. And they've really morphed into a widespread call against their increasing authoritarianism and for their ouster in early elections in March. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Carrie Kahn. Thank you so much, Carrie. CARRIE KAHN, BYLINE: You're welcome.

Republican leaders called President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin "disgraceful," while Russia's top diplomat called the outcome "better than super." Plus, the growing protests against Nicaragua's president.

Die Führer der Republikaner nannten das Treffen von Präsident Trump mit Wladimir Putin \"schändlich\", während Russlands Spitzendiplomat das Ergebnis \"besser als super\" nannte. Dazu kommen die wachsenden Proteste gegen Nicaraguas Präsidenten.

共和党领导人称特朗普总统与普京的会晤“可耻”，而俄罗斯最高外交官称结果“超乎想象地好”。“另外，反对尼加拉瓜总统的抗议活动越来越多。

LYNN NEARY, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Lynn Neary. Two high-profile players in the fashion world are bringing some unflattering attention to an industry that is all about appearances. American Apparel chief executive, Dov Charney, was suspended due, at least in part, to allegations of sexual misconduct against his employees. During Charney's tenure, the clothing company became well-known for its sexually explicit advertising campaign. Also in the news again, top fashion photographer Terry Richardson, who has been accused of sexually harassing models during photo sessions. Sara Ziff is a model who established a nonprofit group called the Model Alliance, which seeks to improve conditions for models in the workplace. We asked her how pervasive the problem of sexual exploitation is in the modeling world. SARA ZIFF: I would say that sexual harassment and abuse are systemic problems in the modeling industry. Obviously, Dov Charney and Terry Richardson are well-known. And these allegations against them have garnered a lot of attention. But it would be a mistake to think that they're the only bad apples in the business. LYNN NEARY, HOST: A lot of fashion photography, now, really is sexually explicit. Are models pretty much told they have to go along with whatever they're asked to do in order to be successful? SARA ZIFF: It's quite common for models, including minors, to be put on the spot to pose semi-nude or nude and, in some cases, be asked to give sexual favors to powerful men, like photographers, who have a lot of control over their careers. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, considering that so many models are young, and very inexperienced and vulnerable, what responsibility do modeling agencies have towards these young women? SARA ZIFF: Well, yes. First, I want to underscore that most models begin their careers when they're very young, under the age of 16, in most cases. So they're particularly vulnerable to abuse. And it actually wasn't until last year that models who are minors even had the protection of the Department of Labor. They were excluded from labor law protections. So things are changing. But certainly agencies should have a responsibility towards their models. Right now I don't think that's entirely the case because sometimes, I think, the agency does not want to compromise their relationship because obviously, you know, big magazines like Harper's Bazaar, or brands like H&M, will generate business for decades, whereas, you know, the models' careers come and go. LYNN NEARY, HOST: How much does the fashion industry care about this? You were just mentioning some of these big-name fashion magazines. I mean, I would say they would have to be complicit with this as well. Do they care? SARA ZIFF: It's sort of an open secret. I think that brands that have publicly come out saying that they are no longer working with Richardson should be applauded. I just don't understand why any brand would want to continue to associate with him and profit from working with him. But I think there is still this sense that what some people call art is a realm that should not be subject to sort of ethical standards. And that is something that I and the Model Alliance are working to change, that perception. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Sara Ziff is a model and the founder of the Model Alliance. Thanks so much for being with us today, Sara. SARA ZIFF: Thank you.

Charges of harassment and abuse against major players in the fashion world have put the industry under scrutiny. NPR's Lynn Neary talks to model Sara Ziff, who founded a nonprofit to protect models.

Anklagen wegen Belästigung und Missbrauchs gegen große Akteure der Modewelt haben die Branche auf den Prüfstand gestellt. Lynn Neary von NPR spricht mit Model Sara Ziff, die eine gemeinnützige Organisation zum Schutz von Models gegründet hat.

对时尚界主要人物的骚扰和虐待指控使该行业受到了密切关注。NPR新闻的林恩·奈里采访了模特萨拉·齐夫，她成立了一个保护模特的非营利组织。

SCOTT SIMON, BYLINE: After generations of war and violence, Afghans are poised to make history with blue fingers. Seven million people voted in the country's runoff presidential election this weekend in Afghanistan's first democratic transfer of power. Abdullah Abdullah, who was Afghanistan's former foreign minister, is running against Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank economist. Photos on social media show Afghan men and women standing in long lines at polling booths, so proudly displaying a finger dipped in blue ink used to mark the ballot. One picture posted by a former NPR producer in Kabul days before the election shows a group of smiling, young Afghans brandishing their voter ID cards with the caption, we will vote for a better Afghanistan. Say no to the enemies of Afghanistan. It will be weeks before all the votes are counted, but Afghans have won a lot just by showing up to vote.

Host Scott Simon takes note of the huge turnout and great pride Afghans exhibited during their presidential election runoff.

Der Moderator Scott Simon berichtet über die hohe Wahlbeteiligung und den großen Stolz der Afghanen bei der Stichwahl um das Präsidentenamt.

主持人斯科特·西蒙注意到出席者众多和阿富汗人在他们的总统选举决选中表现出来自豪。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: Today's talks between the U.S. and Iran may be part of more changes in Iraq policy. The signs are showing on several fronts - signs of a shift in attitude at the White House. For more on that, we turn to our regular Monday conversation with NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Hi, Ron. RON ELVING: Good to be with you, Madeleine. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Well, as we heard last week, the president won his emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan - $100 billion for the next several months. And this is a political victory, isn't it, for him. RON ELVING: Yes. And it's a victory he absolutely needed in the immediate moment. But you know, it was also a more or less inevitable outcome, given the president's veto power and Republican unity in support of it. And it's just the funding for a summer - four more months in a war that's lasted over four years. Come fall, the president's going to need another funding bill. And September is quickly becoming the make or break moment for the U.S. troop surge strategy. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Well, tell us more about that. Why September? RON ELVING: Well, part of it is because of the federal budget cycle, which ends September 30th and drives the congressional debate and gives Congress another point of intervention. But another part comes from General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, whose become the touchstone for the president's policy there. And he's been pointing to September as a time of assessment for the troop build-up. So the Pentagon is looking to September as a critical month as well. MADELEINE BRAND, host: To decide whether or not to add more troops or scale back? RON ELVING: That's correct. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And of course on the political front, that's when things start ramping up. RON ELVING: Oh, yes. The campaigns for 2008 will be moving into higher gear this fall. And Republicans have made it very plain they want a better war scenario to run on than they have right now. And that's why you see stories in the New York Times saying we might slash the troop levels in 2008 and it's why the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he expects there to be a new strategy, a new direction for the war this fall. And he expects the president to lead that new strategy. He said, quote, "the handwriting is on the wall." MADELEINE BRAND, host: Hmm, some tough talk. Well, a lot of this, I understand, revolves around some frustration with the summer plans of the Iraqi leadership. RON ELVING: Indeed. There is very little faith in the al-Maliki government and Republican lawmakers are incensed about the Iraqi parliament taking a long summer recess when the big issues of oil revenue and political rights for the Sunnis remain unresolved. RON ELVING: And you know, there's also a movement among some Iraqi legislators to ask the U.S. to leave the country. Now, that would truly undercut the U.S. rationale for being there, and leave the president and his party out on a limb. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And are there other signs of change? RON ELVING: Well, support for the war has been deteriorating for some time, but now and then you see watershed moments. For instance, Tony Blair leaving as the British prime minister. That cost the president his best ally on the war. It may also be symbolic that at the same time the Brits have decided not to let their Prince Harry deploy with his unit to Iraq this summer. They said they didn't want to make his unit a special target for the terrorists. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And what's going on in terms of public sentiment, public support or non-support for this war? Where is it now? RON ELVING: The latest CBS News and New York Times poll has just one American in four saying that the war is going well. Now, it needs to be said, especially on Memorial Day and after listening to the people who have spoken on the program thus far today, Americans will support their troops forever. But a failed strategy for a war is another story. And an unpopular war is political poison and it's just a matter of time before that poison take effect. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Thank you very much. That's NPR's senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Ron, happy Memorial Day.

The Bush administration is showing renewed interest in the Iraq Study Group report as the basis for a possible Iraq exit strategy.

Die Bush-Administration zeigt erneut Interesse am Bericht der Iraq Study Group als Grundlage für eine mögliche Ausstiegsstrategie aus dem Irak.

布什政府对伊拉克问题研究小组的报告重拾兴趣，认为该报告是伊拉克撤出战略的基础。

NEAL CONAN, host: And now for the Opinion Page. NEAL CONAN, host: Tomorrow night, President Obama speaks to the nation from the Oval Office on what the administration calls the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq and the start of a new era where smaller numbers of American troops will train and support Iraqi forces. NEAL CONAN, host: Since the war started, we've checked in regularly with Gary Anderson to get his military perspective. He is a retired colonel of Marines who taught at the U.S. Army War College, and we've also asked about his experience about his year as a civilian member of a provincial reconstruction team in Iraq. Now in an op-ed for Small Wars Journal, he writes: I frankly see no good option other than a long-term American presence similar to the one we have maintained in Korea. NEAL CONAN, host: We'd like to hear from those of you served in Iraq. Have - are the government and security forces there ready? 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also find a link to Gary Anderson's op-ed and join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: And Colonel Anderson's here with us in Studio 3. Nice to have you back with us. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Good to be here, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Been a long time since you were here on the day the war started. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Yep, it sure is. NEAL CONAN, host: It's - is the Korean analogy the apt analogy? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): To the extent that, I think, a long-term stabilization presence in the country is good, I don't think we need nearly the number of troops that we've maintained in Korea since the end of the conflict there. I think today we - with our ability to count on air power and so forth to protect Iraqi integrity, we don't need a huge ground presence, but I think a continued military and diplomatic commitment to Iraq is certainly appropriate. NEAL CONAN, host: In the case of South Korea, there was an imminent threat. Well, there's never been a peace agreement signed. North Korea was a - what's the threat for Iraq? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, I think, if you were talking to Iraqis, you'd be - they would tell you very, very frankly that it's Iran. Iraqis are deeply suspicious, both Sunni and Shia, of Iranian intensions. It's partially a nationalistic thing, partially a Persian-Arabic problem, but there is a deep wall of suspicion about Iranian intentions for the country itself. NEAL CONAN, host: The Korean War ended in 1954. I think there are still, what, 15,000 U.S. troops there? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Yeah, I can't cite the exact figure, but it's a lot smaller than it was during the Cold War, but it's certainly still a reasonable amount of American presence there. NEAL CONAN, host: You wrote in your op-ed: Although some on the political left have cried no more Koreas, our involvement on that peninsula ensured the growth of an economically healthy and democratic South Korea. NEAL CONAN, host: It was a long time before an economic - a democratic South Korea emerged. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, that's another good reason, I think, for keeping our hands in the Iraqi situation. It took - I think the fact that we had a large presence and a substantial presence helped them to get through some very difficult times, a couple of military coups, some fairly autocratic regimes and so forth. And I think we really have, by and large, done a pretty good job of helping them move toward a real democratic state. NEAL CONAN, host: And the other question though is, is Iraq ready? At this point, there is elections, what, five months ago? They still haven't formed a government. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, that's - that is a real problem. And I, quite frankly, was never as sanguine about the elections as a lot of people in perhaps the embassy and maybe in the military leadership were simply - I think maybe because I had a tendency to be on the ground and talking to the Iraqis. And I don't think anybody ever want broke betting on the fecklessness of the Iranian or the Iraqi political elite. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with retired Colonel Gary Anderson, as President Obama prepares to speak to the country tomorrow night from the Oval Office on Iraq. 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Beth(ph), and Beth's with us from Charleston. BETH (Caller): Yes. Hi there, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. BETH (Caller): I'd like to ask the colonel his opinion about something. It's my concern that now that we have only 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq, that al-Qaida is spending most of their attention, you know, targeting the local Iraqi soldiers. And those, of course, are the ones that our remaining troops are training. And I guess you could say they're, like, embedded with the, you know, their counterparts in the Iraqi service. So does that make the 50,000 troops that remain, are they therefore more vulnerable because they seem to be targeting the Iraqi counterparts? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Beth, that's a really fair question. I think, by and large, that you'll find that force protection is a real concern for General Odierno and whoever succeeds him in the job. I'm not quite as concerned about force protection for American troops, but this is going to be a difficult time for the Iraqi military and their security forces simply because they are on their own. They're standing up, and we can only hope that they're - they - that we prepared them well enough to do the job in the future. BETH (Caller): Yes, sir. Hopefully, they can really learn a lot from the remaining soldiers. And hopefully - unfortunately, there's not a - no osmosis is possible. But I'm just concerned, then, that they're going to be taking on the role of protecting, basically, or, you know, being the same as the 50,000 troops that are there and kind of acting as their protectors. And that was my question, sir. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks for the call, Beth. BETH (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. BETH (Caller): Bye-bye. NEAL CONAN, host: There's the question she asked about the Iraqi army, essentially, but there's also the police who have been, in the past - back in the bad, old days of the near civil war there - infected by a lot of sectarian forces. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): That's always a concern. I think there's - there have been a lot of improvements. The - I can only speak for the northwest Baghdad and Abu Ghraib area, where I was. But I saw a great deal of improvement in the year that I was there. Now I've been gone since February, but I'm fairly confident that they're on an upward trajectory. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's get another caller in. This is Dave, Dave with us from Miami. DAVE (Caller): Good afternoon, Neal. How are you? NEAL CONAN, host: I'm well. Thank you. DAVE (Caller): I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, thank you. DAVE (Caller): I served in Vietnam. That was my war. And I did a lot of the type of fighting that they have done recently in the area we are committed in - both areas that we are committed in now. I have been watching the situation very closely because I do have concern for my military. And I feel that when we look at the legislature that was elected sometime ago, and they have not formed a government a yet, I feel that the level of disintegration that is within that country, we would do well to get the hell out of there as fast as we can, because they don't want us there. DAVE (Caller): When we were in Korea, as we still are, we never heard people saying that we are the cause of the problem, as I have heard in reports from Baghdad over time. And it seems as if whatever goes wrong, we're the guys that's responsible, but we're really not going to be making any decisions. So I think the best thing to do is move out and go home. NEAL CONAN, host: Colonel Anderson - just Dave, I do remember phases of anti-American demonstrations in Korean back in the '60s, and subsequent, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating against U.S. forces. But, anyway... Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, I think the problem you run in here - to here is, you know, one of complexity. But I'll be honest with you, I think after the amount of time we spent in Iraq, you're going to find that there are a lot of Iraqis who are really, really worried about us just totally up and leaving. You know, there's always going to be a certain amount of, you know, anti-foreign sentiment and so forth, but I - but I'll tell you, I heard an awful lot more in the way of we really wish you guys would stay around a little bit longer than I did get out of our country. DAVE (Caller): Well, I understand what you're saying, and I don't mean that we should be preemptively about the exit. We've got to do it with decorum, obviously. But the point is we shouldn't be looking to prolong our presence in that particular environment, because we are dealing with a totally different mentality. NEAL CONAN, host: Dave, the current agreement with the Iraqi government calls for all U.S. forces to be out by the end of next year, the end of 2011. Is that a timetable that seems to work? DAVE (Caller): Sounds good to me. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Dave. Thanks very much. DAVE (Caller): And thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Let's see if we can go - by the way, the - I think there's a change-of-command ceremony in Baghdad tomorrow, and General Odierno is turning over to General Lloyd Austin III. He's... Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): That's what I understand, yes. NEAL CONAN, host: ...the new man in charge. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Roland, Roland with us on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. ROLAND (Caller): Good morning, sir. NEAL CONAN, host: Good morning to you - afternoon where we are, though. ROLAND (Caller): Oh, yeah. Well, I was just calling to just comment on - I have some military notes that were from grandfather, who served in the Korean War. And, you know, if we plan on staying over there in, you know, the Middle East and Afghanistan, are we going to be needing to create our own military money like they did back then? And are we going to end up dividing the Afghan country into, you know, separate states that either want military presence from America, and that of, you know, the extremist Muslim community that just does not want us there to begin with? NEAL CONAN, host: There's a lot different questions in there, Colonel Anderson, but his grandfather served in Korea. Is his grandson going to be serving in Afghanistan or Iraq? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, I think there's always a possibility that - I think it's more probable that we might see - we might rethink this thing to a point where we have a longer-term presence. But that doesn't necessarily mean a combat presence, nor does it mean, you know, an occupation. We're past the occupation stage. I think we're into a situation where American presence really is going to be a lot more low-key. And certainly, if we're going to be there for a long time, we're going to be trying to contribute to the economy, not be separate from it. NEAL CONAN, host: Roland, thanks very much for the call. Appreciate it. ROLAND (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with retired Colonel Gary Anderson today on the Opinion Page. There's a link at our website, npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION, link to his op-ed in the Small Wars Journal. NEAL CONAN, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Daniel, Daniel with us from Sacramento. DANIEL (Caller): Hi. How are you today? NEAL CONAN, host: Very well, thanks. DANIEL (Caller): Great. I have a question for the colonel. Colonel, considering all these sectarian issues that we have in Iraq - you have the Turkmen, the Sunni, the Shia, and a small, you know, subgroups from that, Kurds and so forth - and then Turkey and other countries in region, which, obviously, have their opinions, how is the government in the future going to deal with this? And are we not going to simply train another leader like we did Saddam to sort of, you know, have an iron fist and rule with an iron fist? And is that the only option, to have almost, like, a warlord dictator in Iraq? Because, obviously, we can't - we have an election, and the people can't, you know, seem to get a cohesive government together. And I'm just curious if that's going to be the end goal, is that we're going to instill another sort of leader who is really kind of brutal. NEAL CONAN, host: Daniel, you could say a lot of things about U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein, but that we trained him is not accurate. But I think he is asking: Are we going to have - getting back to the South Korea analogy - another Syngman Rhee? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, let's hope not. But we won't rule out the possibility, but that's part of the argument that I make for having a longer term American presence. I think a lot of the political and economic and diplomatic pressure we put on to, you know, to push Korea into a democratic situation was as a result of our heavy involvement there. And I think that's a good argument for maintaining some kind of a presence there. NEAL CONAN, host: Daniel, thanks - I'm sorry, were you saying something? DANIEL (Caller): Oh, thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, Daniel. Thanks very much for the phone call. Appreciate it. Let's go next to Mike, and Mike's with us from Destin in Florida. MIKE (Caller): Yes, hi, Neal. How are you? NEAL CONAN, host: I'm okay. How are you today? MIKE (Caller): I'm not too bad. Not too bad. And also, good morning, colonel. How are you? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Fine, thank you. MIKE (Caller): Just a quick question. Actually, the previous caller kind of asked the same question I had, but good thing I have a backup one. Pretty much, I just kind of wanted to know - and this is more of a policy, I guess, kind of question - is it seems like we're moving - since we're moving more towards wars against non-state kind of players, so it seems like we're actually going to have to engage in a kind of a counterinsurgency, those kind of guerilla-type of engagements. MIKE (Caller): Now, I know that the American public is used to always trying to have kind of a blitzkrieg kind of war, you know, just quick in-and-out, we're done, everybody come back home. But now it seems like the engagers are going to be much more protracted. As far as selling it to the people, do you see something, I guess, you know, in the future that we can actually use to make it more, I guess - I don't want to say appealing. That's not the right word, but at least kind of put it in the right perspective of saying, hey. You know what? We're going to be here for an X amount of years, and this is what's going to take. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Yeah, well, I think the - you know, the question's a good one. The situation, of course, is always dependent on casualties. You're going to have a lot of casualties going on. There's going to be a lot of tension. I think a long-term American presence of advisers and a, you know, a military infrastructure in the country to provide for defense against foreign involvement doesn't necessarily mean a heavy involvement. We - it's been years and years and years since we've ever had any major domestic problems with our involvement in Korea, or Japan, for that matter. NEAL CONAN, host: Or Germany, yeah. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Or Germany. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah. Yeah. Mike, thanks very much for the phone call. You read - you wrote in your piece: No one in his right mind sets out to start a long and bloody war. Everybody envisions a short and glorious victory. Considering the odds, you conclude, we did not do as badly in Iraq as we could have. What did you mean by that? Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Well, yeah, back in 2002, I did a study for the Marine Corps, when President Bush first - or second President Bush started to announce policy of preemption. And the results of the study were that in the 20th century, countries that actually started wars sort of, you know, for ostensibly preemptive reasons, the odds were not good. They're about 40 percent of success, although the successes, when they occurred, were spectacular. But when the war became protracted, almost every case resulted in regime change, you know, from the side that started the thing. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): So, overall, I think, you know, basically, although the Bush administration ran its course, where - we haven't done all that bad as far as wrapping this one up. NEAL CONAN, host: Again, there's a link to Gary Anderson's op-ed at our webpage. Go to npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Thanks, as always, for your time. Colonel GARY ANDERSON (Retired, U.S. Marine Corps): Thanks, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: Gary Anderson, now a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. NEAL CONAN, host: Tomorrow, from Ground Zero to the Lincoln Memorial, we'll talk about the meaning of sacred secular space. Join us for that. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

August 2010 marks the end of combat operations in Iraq — and a shift for U.S. troops from a combat mission to one of support. But Retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson says that stability in Iraq will require an ongoing American military presence, similar to the U.S. force in Korea, to contain Iran's influence.

Im August 2010 enden die Kampfhandlungen im Irak - und die US-Truppen gehen von einer Kampfmission zu einer Unterstützungsmission über. Gary Anderson, Oberst der Marineinfanterie im Ruhestand, ist jedoch der Meinung, dass die Stabilität im Irak eine ständige amerikanische Militärpräsenz erfordert, ähnlich wie die US-Streitkräfte in Korea, um den Einfluss des Iran einzudämmen.

2010年8月标志着在伊拉克的作战行动结束，美国军队从作战任务转变为支援任务。但据退役的海军上校加里·安德森说，伊拉克的稳定需要美国持续的军事存在，就像美国在朝鲜的军队一样，以遏制伊朗的影响。

NEAL CONAN, host: At the end of his career, baseball great Lou Gehrig became indelibly associated with the disease ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Mr. LHOU GEHRIG: For the past two weeks, you've been reading about a bad break. Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Mr. LHOU GEHRIG: That I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful a lot to live for. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And everyone since has known it as Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS attacks nerve cells in the brain, and the spinal cord. Victims steadily lose the ability to control their muscles and eventually die. Last week in New York Times, Alan Schwarz wrote about new research that suggests Lou Gehrig might not have had Lou Gehrig's disease, but another condition that stems from brain trauma, from concussions. If you read the story and have questions, 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. NEAL CONAN, host: New York Times' correspondent Alan Schwarz joins us from our bureau in New York City. And, Alan, always nice to have you on the program. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, thank you, Neal. Good to be here. NEAL CONAN, host: You've been doing a lot of reporting for the Times on brain injuries and athletes. What led you to suspect that this group includes Lou Gehrig? Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, to be honest, the discovery was made by the same group that have been making a lot of the same - of similar discoveries, brain damage in retired National Foot League players. Excuse me. It's the group out of Boston University and the VA up in New England, which had found that several men who had been diagnosed with ALS, they claim had something else that caused the motor neuron degeneration that looked like ALS to the naked eye, but they say it was something else. And because these men also had such significant histories of brain trauma and the evidence of that trauma - two proteins that are associated with that inside the brain tissue - they believe that this condition was caused by brain trauma, not by, sort of, the inexplicable hand of fate... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): ...that is often used to explain why ALS happens. NEAL CONAN, host: Almost a disease whose cause is unknown and whose outcome is certain. And, again, typified by Lou Gehrig, the great strong Iron Horse struck down in the prime of his life. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Well what they claim is - has happened, is that they believe that a small subset, by no means, all or even - excuse me - a majority, but a small subset of people who have been diagnosed with ALS like these three athletes they examined, might have been misdiagnosed. And those with very significant histories of brain trauma, perhaps, those who served in the military, inexperienced combat injuries or, for example, professional athletes in collision sports, if they developed ALS or were diagnosed with ALS, it's possible that they were misdiagnosed, that they have something else. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Now, some people believe that that's a stretch. I had a very nice conversation, yesterday, with a doctor from the Alzheimer's - excuse me - the ALS Association, who disagrees with the finding. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): But that is what they were saying. Because Lou Gehrig had such a history of brain trauma, they're saying he might have been misdiagnosed too. NEAL CONAN, host: Brain trauma - getting beaned? Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, yeah. He was knocked unconscious in a 1934 game and in large part, because he had that long consecutive game streak that we all heard so much about in 1995 when Cal Ripkin broke it, he didn't want to miss the next game. So despite having been knocked unconscious for five minutes, which is a really big deal... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): ...with a huge lump on his head and a bad headache, he played the next day, because that's what he was supposed to do. That's what he was known for. We know that, now, to be incredibly dangerous. And this happened several documented times in the 1920s and 1930s, when things like that weren't even reported on very much. So it's fair to assume that it happened other times as well. We now know that to be very dangerous. NEAL CONAN, host: And... Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): We don't know whether he had ALS, whether he had something else. We don't know really. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, if this other condition does exists, you would think that in a group of professional athletes whose heads are subjected to injuries a lot -boxers, professional football players - there would be a disproportional number of ALS diagnosis. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): In fact, there is. There have been 14 or 15 retired NFL players diagnosed with ALS, which is roughly eight times what would be expected in that population of that age group. And there really only should have been one or two, when there have been 14 or 15. Now, that means two things. One, that this is real, that there is something going on. And two what it also means is it's not affecting that many people. I mean, 12 or 13 extra guys in 50 years - you know, it matters a lot to those 12 or 13 guys and their families, don't get me wrong. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): But by no means should this finding be confused with the far more widespread problem of post-concussion syndrome, second-impact syndrome, and some of the dementia and cognitive decline problems that have been associated with head impacts on the football field. That affects thousands of people. NEAL CONAN, host: Also with us today is Dr. Robert Stern, associate professor of neurology and codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program at Boston University, cited Alan Schwarz' piece last week in The New York Times. Dr. Stern, thanks very much for being with us today. Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Great to be here, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: And you're quoted in the piece saying, "People are being misdosed(ph) clinically while they're alive as having ALS when they, in fact, have a different motor neuron disease. ALS is famously difficult to treat. Is this other motor neuron disease treatable? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): No. Unfortunately, it's not treatable. And also the concept of misdiagnosis needs to be clarified. The diagnosis of ALS is a clinical diagnosis that is made by many different tests that neurologists would be conducting on a patient. And there are many different types of ALS. They might all be considered motor neuron diseases. And the most common type of motor neuron disease is indeed ALS. But most of those motor neuron diseases are going to be considered ALS, clinically. And it's only when you look at the brain and the spinal cord under a microscope, that it can truly differentiate amongst these diseases - including this new disease that we have described in this recent paper. NEAL CONAN, host: When you look at them under a microscope, is that possible early on in the diagnosis or is that only in an autopsy? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Unfortunately, it is only after the person passes away and we look at their brains after an autopsy. NEAL CONAN, host: And do the diseases present - or the conditions - present differently, or they're diagnosed as ALS because they look very much like ALS? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): They are all potentially considered ALS, even. Many clinicians who are the world's greatest ALS experts will diagnose all of these various types of diseases, these motor neuron diseases, as ALS. And this is really talking about one of the potential causes of these diseases. So it looks different under a microscope. And more than likely, it has a different cause or a specific cause, different from sporadic ALS and the other types of ALS. So in this case, the cause is likely to be repetitive head trauma that these athletes had survived during their life. But there are many other causes of ALS, from genetics to, perhaps, neurotoxins, to who knows what. Most of the causes are not yet known, and there are scientists trying to figure it out. What this new disease is saying is that there's likely one cause that we are now understanding, and that's repetitive head trauma. NEAL CONAN, host: We have a caller on the line. Cynthia(ph) is with us from Spokane in Washington. CYNTHIA (Caller): Hi. Thank you for taking my call. NEAL CONAN, host: Go ahead, please. CYNTHIA (Caller): I'm a widow, someone who is diagnosed with ALS. And I am aware of the different variations of what people consider ALS, like one of speakers were saying. It was at the time my husband passed away, which is basically about five years ago. We were living in Palm Springs. And like your speaker talked of, the percentage of people that we run into who knew someone who had ALS was amazingly higher than what we hear and read on the websites for information. But my question is really, regarding brain trauma mimicking. I would like to know exactly how far brain trauma - this kind of - the symptoms can mimic ALS. Would it be until death? Is - do we have - is there a lateral disintegration of muscles? And like ALS, does the patient fail to be able to swallow and breathe and things like that in that order? NEAL CONAN, host: Dr. Stern, can you help us out? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Yeah. I think it's fair to say that - it not only mimics ALS, it would be appropriately diagnosed as ALS. This new disease is another form of ALS or motor neuron disease that will look the same, will have the same clinical presentation, the same course as this woman's husband unfortunately suffered through. And it's really - it's a matter of scientific knowledge, how we look at the brain tissue after someone passes, to understand the different types and forms and causes of ALS. And so, clinically, they're not going to be distinguishable. NEAL CONAN, host: Cynthia, we're very sorry for your loss, and thank you very much for the phone call. CYNTHIA (Caller): Thanks for your time, and thanks for this subject. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with, as you just heard, Dr. Robert Stern at Boston University. And also with us, Alan Schwarz, a correspondent for The New York Times. You can find a link to his piece, "Study Says Brain Trauma Can Mimic ALS," there's a link to it on our website at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And we have this email question from Debbie(ph) in Columbus: I nearly died from a brain injury 25 years ago. How long does it take before ALS-like symptoms would appear? And Dr. Stern, just going back to something that Alan said earlier, Debbie, it would seem to me, might - would Debbie be more at risk from the ALS-like symptoms or more at risk from the cognitive problems that Alan was talking about earlier? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Yeah, it's a good question. The big issue is that when you hit your head over and over again, as seen in the military and in collision sports, it obviously isn't going to be good for you. But not everyone who has a brain trauma, either a single one, perhaps like Debbie's, or the repetitive nature of collision sports, not everyone who has these repetitive brain traumas will go on to develop these diseases later in life. We don't yet know who is at risk for developing these diseases. Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Like Alan was saying earlier, we do know that there's an increased risk of developing what we call chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, which is a cause of dementia later in life that is due to repetitive head trauma earlier in life. But that doesn't mean that everyone who hits their head will go on to develop CTE. Even fewer people will go on to develop this ALS-like disease later in life. Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): So just because someone has had a brain injury or they've had even repetitive head trauma, that doesn't mean they should be scared that they're going to develop these diseases. They're relatively rare, and we don't yet know what else adds to the kind of magic combination of risks that put people at a greater chance of getting the disease later. NEAL CONAN, host: Alan Schwarz, let me get back to you just for a moment. It's interesting, you've been doing a groundbreaking series of reports on injuries, most of them about the National Football League, professional football. NEAL CONAN, host: Earlier this week the owners of the National Football League met to consider the idea of expanding from 16 to 18 regular season games per year. And I wonder, can you see that there's been any effect of the news of the effect of repetitive head injuries on how the league is designing equipment or designing its game? Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Well, I think that you have to - one would have to consider the proposal of extending the season from 16 to 18 games solely in the context of collective bargaining. The owners want to have two more games in order to make, you know, 12 percent more money. And the players don't want that, or if they say that's okay, then they want a very high cut of the extra money. It's all collective bargaining. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): Now, the league, after spending three years or so doing considerably less about head injuries and concussions and sub-concussive blows, did do several things at the end of last year, requiring an independent neurologist to decide whether a player can go back to a practice or to a game and then ultimately not even allowing players who sustain a concussion or believe to have had a concussion to go back into the same game or practice. These are things that the league defended publicly only months before. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): They have done some very, you know, good things regarding their place in terms of leaders - thought leaders in the industry. I just(ph) think that if they were to take two pre-season games and make them regular season, that's a collective bargaining issue. It has very little to do with player health. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, let's see if we can get a call in. Dennis(ph) is on the line from Bryant in Arkansas. DENNIS (Caller): Yes. I can't remember the name of the English astrophysicist whose worldwide known case... NEAL CONAN, host: I think it's Stephen Hawking. DENNIS (Caller): Yeah, Stephen Hawking. Of course, I knew. He survives such a long time, I was wondering if there's anything else atypical about his - how was he diagnosed as ALS? Is it absolutely certain that's what he has? NEAL CONAN, host: Dr. Stern? Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): Yeah, it - I can't imagine that he doesn't have ALS, and he is definitely an outlier. Most people with ALS will sadly pass away within a few years. And very few people do have the long life that Stephen Hawking has shown. Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): It's also important to note that the majority of people with sporadic ALS get it later in life, perhaps in their 50's and 60's or even later. And what it appears like is that these athletes, as well as people in the military, seem to get this other disease, ALS-like disease perhaps, or ALS itself earlier in life, perhaps in their 40's. NEAL CONAN, host: Dennis, thanks very much for the phone call. DENNIS (Caller): Yeah. Thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: Appreciate it. And Dr. Stern, thank you very much for your time today. Dr. ROBERT STERN (Codirector of Alzheimer's Disease Clinical and Research Program, Boston University): It's my pleasure. NEAL CONAN, host: Robert Stern is director of Clinical Core, a research registry for patients with Alzheimer's disease. He joined us from the studios at Boston University. Alan Schwarz, correspondent for The New York Times. You can read his article - again, there's a link to it at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION - joined us from our bureau in New York. Alan, as always, thanks very much. Mr. ALAN SCHWARZ (Correspondent, The New York Times): My pleasure, Neal.

By the end of his impressive baseball career, Lou Gehrig was the face of A.L.S. — or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis — a disease that attacks the brain and the spinal cord. Alan Schwarz of The New York Times and Boston University's Dr. Robert Stern explain the new theories on Lou Gehrig's diagnosis and the disease that bears his name.

Am Ende seiner beeindruckenden Baseballkarriere war Lou Gehrig das Gesicht von A.L.S – oder der Amyotrophe Lateralsklerose – einer Krankheit, die das Gehirn und das Rückenmark angreift. Alan Schwarz von der New York Times und Dr. Robert Stern von der Boston University erklären die neuen Theorien zu Lou Gehrigs Diagnose und der Krankheit, die seinen Namen trägt.

结束了令人印象深刻的棒球生涯后，卢·贾里格又成为了肌萎缩侧索硬化病的代言人，这是一种攻击大脑和脊髓的疾病。《纽约时报》的艾伦·施瓦茨和波士顿大学的罗伯特·斯特恩博士解说了一项新理论，包括卢·贾里格的病理诊断以及以其名字命名的疾病。