Datasets:

GEM

/

xmediasum

like 4

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Now, here to help preview what the NAACP'S new relationship with the White House might be is Bruce Gordon, president of the NAACP. Welcome. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Mr. BRUCE GORDON, (President, NAACP): Hello. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So let me ask you specifically what you had to do to get the president to the table, because he was very effusive in his praise for you and saying that you were the one specifically who brought him to the table. Mr. GORDON: This has been a one-year journey, if you will. I stepped into this position with the intention of building a relationship with the White House simply because I think that no matter who is in the White House, what their policies are, there should be relationship between the White House and the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the country. Mr. GORDON: So that is the approach that I took. It's been a candid, direct approach. It's been one that was designed to acknowledge where we have differences but to make sure that we have clear conversation about that, but also to search for opportunities where our respective points of view intersect so that we can be collaborative. It's been an honest relationship. It's been a respectful relationship on both sides. And we've had enough time over the past year to test our ability to relate, to cooperate, and I guess from both sides of the relationship, we think we've passed the test. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Having only been able to view the speech on television, I was struck by silence for certain portions of the president's speech on, for example, faith-based initiatives, on the estate tax and resounding applause for others, like the Voting Rights Act. Do you think that the president made his point that he is trying to reach out to the African-American vote, or did the audience not respond entirely? Mr. GORDON: I think that the audience did exactly what I would expect the audience to do. They voted. They expressed their point of view. The president was there. He I think was direct; he was consistent in terms of promoting those policies, those principles that he and his administration stand for. And the audience gave him their response. So when he said Voting Rights Act, no amendments, they cheered. They support that. When he said home ownership and business ownership, they supported that. When he said charter schools, they didn't support that. They didn't respond to, as you point out, faith-based initiatives. Mr. GORDON: So in effect, I think that the audience was attentive. I thought that they were respectful. I thought that they paid close attention to every word that the president said. And when he said something that sounded right and consistent with our point of view, they gave him feedback. When he said something that was inconsistent and not in line with our point of view, they gave him feedback to that too. I thought it was an honest exchange and that's exactly what it should have been. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How do you respond to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois who said don't be bamboozled, don't buy into it. It's great if he commits to signing it - it being the Voting Rights Act - but what is critical is the follow through. You don't just talk the talk, but you also walk the walk. How do you respond to that? Mr. GORDON: Well, let's respond to that specifically in terms of the Voting Rights Act, because Senator Obama is absolutely right. It's not just a matter of having a law. It's a matter of enforcing the law. So first, there's no question that we want that Voting Rights Act to be reauthorized and restored. It's now come through the Senate, 98 to 0. So the president will sign it. He's committed to that. And we'll have that extension for another 25 years. That's perfect. But having said that, keep in mind that we have a Voting Rights Act in place today, yet in states like Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, there are voting rights abuses. The George Voter ID law is a bad law. The Department of Justice pre-cleared it twice. They shouldn't have. It's only the court system that threw those laws out. Mr. GORDON: You couldn't vote in the Louisiana - the New Orleans mayoral election if you were evacuated to cities like Houston and Atlanta. That's the plan that was submitted by the State of Louisiana. The Department of Justice should not have approved the plan. They did. Mr. GORDON: So Senator Obama's point is that it's one thing to have a law, and we certainly need them, it is another thing to enforce the law, and we have not seen an even, consistent enforcement of a law as its written and as its intended. And he could not be further from the truth. And we're going to follow up on that. Mr. GORDON: We had hearings on Capitol Hill, we the NAACP, three weeks ago to speak to the issue of Department of Justice enforcement. So there's always work to do. We'll celebrate the passage of this law, we'll celebrate the president signing it, but we have to be ever vigilant. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In addition to the hearings, are you going to try to dialogue with the president personally, as you have in the past? And to what extent do you think that he takes your counsel now? He clearly takes you seriously because you were the one who brought him to the table to speak to the convention. But to what degree do you think that he takes your counsel on matters like the Voting Rights Act enforcement? Mr. GORDON: I have had, during the course of this first year, fairly frequent interaction with the administration. It's just not a matter of if you talk to the president. He's got powerful people around him. I've had access to those folks. They've been open and receptive in terms of exchanging ideas. I'm not satisfied that I'm influencing policy as much as I want. I still see decisions being made by the administration that are not consistent with what I would have them do. Mr. GORDON: But if you start with the point is there access, is there discussion, are there attempts to influence policy and are there opportunities to make those attempts. The answers to all of those questions is yes. I simply to improve our batting average. I'm not satisfied that the interactions have produced the outcomes that I seek. And all that I can do along that line is continue to work the issue. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Finally and briefly, if you could just have one thing accomplished by the time you end your tenure, what would it be? Mr. GORDON: My list is too long to say there's one thing. I'm particularly focused on jobs at the moment. I mean, if I look at an area where there is a basis for creating great solutions, it would be to close the unemployment disparity between African-Americans and the majority community, get more people to work earning a decent wage, getting the benefits of healthcare that many times employers provide, being placed in a position to live in communities with better public schools systems and so forth. Mr. GORDON: So if I could do one thing, if I had a silver bullet, it would be to wipe out the disparity of unemployment, put Black Americans in particular to work. Put Black men, in particular, to work and change the economic landscape of their lives. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: NAACP President Bruce Gordon, thank you very much for your time. Mr. GORDON: My pleasure. Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Coming up, the president's speech to the NAACP. One black lawmaker says it's going to take more than words to woo black voters. And Chicago police tortured suspects in their custody, so why won't they be punished? We'll discuss these and other topics on our Roundtable, next.

President Bush credited an amicable relationship with first-year NAACP President Bruce Gordon in deciding to address the group. Farai Chideya talks to Gordon about President Bush's speech, and the NAACP's new relationship with the White House.

Präsident Bush begründete seine Entscheidung, vor der NAACP zu sprechen, mit der freundschaftlichen Beziehung zu Bruce Gordon, dem NAACP-Präsidenten des ersten Jahres. Farai Chideya spricht mit Gordon über die Rede von Präsident Bush und die neuen Beziehungen der NAACP

布什总统与全国有色人种协进会的第一届主席布鲁斯·戈登建立了友好的关系，因此决定向该组织发表讲话。法莱·奇德亚与戈登谈论了布什总统的演讲，以及全国有色人种协进会与白宫的新关系。

ED GORDON, host: We've heard a lot in recent months about the misery political conflicts have brought to villages in places like Sudan and Lebanon. The efforts made to help heal the psychic wounds caused by such trauma are less well publicized. One such effort is spearheaded by a man named Jamie McLaren Lachman. ED GORDON, host: He directs an organization called Clowns Without Borders that helps children around the world laugh in the face of daunting obstacles. Lachman spoke with NPR's Tony Cox. TONY COX reporting: Give me your African name again? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): It's a Zulu name. It's Jabulani(ph). COX: Jabulani. What does it mean? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): It means one who brings happiness. And I was actually given the name at birth. COX: Really? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Yeah. COX: So project Njabulo, which is your project, brings happiness and joy, or attempts to at least, to youngsters across Africa who are suffering in many ways. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): In very many ways. A focus is HIV/AIDS relief, but really the world encompasses poverty, violence, child abuse, malnutrition, you name it. We're using the laughter and play for emotional relief. COX: Give us an example of how you go into a village or to an area and you bring this laughter. How does it work and how are you received? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Well, usually we're working with local grassroots, community-based organizations. And so we will coordinate before we even arrive in southern Africa with these organizations. And then when we go into a village or a community, if we're doing a performance, normally that will be focused on a primary school in the area where the children are located in concentrated numbers. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): We set up the audience, which sometimes takes about an hour because a lot of these areas they're not really used to having someone come to do a performance for them. So we'll set them up with chairs and make a big round circle, kind of like an impromptu circus ring. And then we parade in and we do our show, which is usually about an hour long. And afterwards we spend about two hours just playing with the kids, singing songs, doing a lot of call and response. A lot of different activities, more informal interaction. COX: So this is big red noses, big shoes, the whole thing that we normally associate with going to a circus and clowns? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Not really. People think of clowns in the United States as these huge makeup, big colorful wig. COX: Right, right. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): We're more human. So we will use a little bit of makeup, sometimes around the mouth of below the eyes and that's for a large audience. And so they can see our features. But really if you look at that makeup really close up, the traditional clown makeup, it's scary. And we don't want to scare the kids. I mean the (unintelligible) really instead of coming out of the big funny costumes or the makeup that comes from the heart. COX: In what ways do you find that the youngsters who come to your performances - let's talk about the performances separate from the training that you do there - how do they respond to humor? And how is it different than how an American audience or a European audience of kids might respond, kids who are not involved in the level of, you know, atrocities that these kids have to live through? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Well, these audiences - actually, they respond with a lot of enthusiasm to the work. We work in a very non verbal way, very much like what you'd imagine the silent movies are like or non verbal cartoons. When we do our performances, we do address issues that these children have experienced. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): For instance, we have a routine where we have a balloon that pops and it becomes a funeral for the balloon. And it's a death. We march around; we say prayers over it. And so we're juxtaposing something that is common in their daily life with something that is also humorous. And out of the balloon, when we put it into a hat, it magically comes out as a red nose, which then goes onto a volunteer's face. COX: How did Project Njabulo begin? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): About five years ago, my partner at the time and I were traveling throughout southern Africa. And we were just tourists. And at the end of the trip, we were in Cape Town and we were looking at each other and we both really spiritually wasted. We had seen a lot of poverty and a lot of struggling just to survive. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): We asked ourselves what we can we do next time - if we ever go back here, what would we do? And we're both, we're clowns. And so we were like, well, let's use laughter as a way to address some of the needs of people that we were encountering. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): And then the next year, we started off. We did a short expedition of like three and a half weeks, and from there it's grown to four months and this year we'll be six months in the field. COX: And it's not just performing. Talk about the other element of what you do. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Well, Project Njabulo has four different focuses. We do performances for a wide audience, and then we do a more focused approach with workshops, which are really working on effected children. We will spend time in the classroom with them using theatre arts education as a means to address some of these needs. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): So we're looking at like self-confidence, creativity, cultivating a sense of play and giving them really tools to be children again. Because a lot of times the trauma takes them out of that life of a child, the life of imagination and hope. COX: Are there areas where you can't go or don't or won't go? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Well, with Clowns Without Borders, we have to be careful cause we don't want to go to places that the situation hasn't been stabilized. For instance, in Sudan, we had just recently did an expedition to Khartoum, but we didn't go to the southern part in Darfur because the situation is really still risky. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): While we believe that our service is very important for the sustenance of life, we have to make sure that the primary needs are met of health and shelter and food before you bring in the laughter and the emotional relief. COX: I must ask you this because I'm curious about it. I know that you're South African and you're a white African. Has that been a factor at all in terms of how you have been received by these black African children on the continent? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Sometimes it is. I mean, there's really a bridging of a racial divide. In South Africa, it's still very much divided. I think sometimes it's a positive, has a positive effect. Because a lot of the children, their only relationship with white people is in a very hierarchal manner. And when we come in with the clown, the clown really plays with the kids on their level, whether it's with outrageous physical humor or a tender time when you're just singing a song or just doing a small little dance. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): We've also collaborated with Swazi and South African performers. And that's a great opportunity then for cross-cultural exchange and growth for both of us. So it's kind of like a two-way street. COX: You get a good feeling from this, don't you? Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): Yeah. COX: I could tell. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): It's very magical. COX: Thank you so much for coming in. Jamie McLaren Lachman aka Jabulani… Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): That's right. COX: …directs Clowns Without Borders Project Njabulo. Thank you very much for coming in. Mr. JAMIE MCLAREN LACHMAN (Director, Clowns Without Borders): It's my pleasure. Thanks, Tony. ED GORDON, host: That was NPR's Tony Cox. ED GORDON, host: That's our program for today. Thanks for joining us. To listen to the show, visit npr.org. And if you'd like to give us a comment, call 202-408-3330. NEWS AND NOTES was created NPR News and the African-American Public Radio Consortium.

Jamie Lachman talks about the nonprofit organization, Clowns Without Borders. Lachman and his co-workers bring humor to children around the world through performances and workshops.

Jamie Lachman spricht über die gemeinnützige Organisation „Clowns ohne Grenzen“. Lachman und seine Mitarbeiter bringen durch Performances und Workshops Humor zu den Kindern auf der ganzen Welt.

杰米·拉克曼谈到了非营利组织“小丑无国界”。拉克曼和他的同事通过表演和研讨会将幽默带给了世界各地的孩子们。

NOEL KING, HOST: President Trump has picked Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for Supreme Court justice. Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring. Republicans have celebrated Kavanaugh for his impressive resume and extensive experience as a federal appeals court judge. Most Democrats, on the other hand, oppose him. President Trump has said from the beginning that he wants to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court who is, in his words, pro-life. That has many people thinking about Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that gave women the right to have abortions. Sarah Weddington was a 26-year-old attorney from Texas when she argued that case in front of the Supreme Court and won. She's with me now. Good morning, Ms. Weddington. SARAH WEDDINGTON: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. So tell me - what was the legal reasoning the Supreme Court used when they decided Roe v. Wade? SARAH WEDDINGTON: It was basically that there was a right of privacy that made it possible for women to make the decision about whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And that has continued to be the focus of several Supreme Court decisions since then. NOEL KING, HOST: What changed when that ruling was handed down in 1973? SARAH WEDDINGTON: Well, for women, everything - because once the decision came down, it meant that doctors were then free to perform abortions legally and didn't have to be afraid they would be arrested for an illegal abortion. NOEL KING, HOST: Back in 1992, the Supreme Court weighed a case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that might have overturned Roe v. Wade. Now, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote that prevented that. By your understanding, what were the legal principles that guided him in that case? SARAH WEDDINGTON: Well, I think it was still the right to privacy. But in that case, no state law had made abortion illegal. It made it much more difficult, with conditions about what the room had to look like and what the - how wide the hallways had to be and all kinds of things. And Justice Kennedy basically said, no, Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal, and you can't do all these conditions, as Pennsylvania had done, that makes it impossible for access. NOEL KING, HOST: How might Kavanaugh or the court change the way Roe v. Wade is interpreted? SARAH WEDDINGTON: Well, my guess is that someone like Kavanaugh would write an opinion basically saying there is no right of privacy. The language is not in the Constitution, and so it doesn't really exist. It was made up by the justices at the time. There's also a possibility they would say, well, it still allows the states to legislate in whatever way they want to. But frankly, I have no idea what he might do, except I'm sure he'll be against Roe v. Wade. NOEL KING, HOST: Well what do you make of the argument that this is a state's rights issue, that this should be decided by individual states? SARAH WEDDINGTON: Under the court's decision, privacy is not meant to be a one-state deal. It's meant to be the basis for people living in all the United States. And it has been up to now. NOEL KING, HOST: I'm wondering if I can finish up with a personal question. Many years after Roe v. Wade, you wrote in your memoir that as a young woman, you had an abortion. You had to go to Mexico to get the procedure done. When you reflect back on that time in your life, in light of Kavanaugh's nomination, where does your mind go? SARAH WEDDINGTON: To gratitude that I had the opportunity but anger that suddenly Trump, who has no right to give speeches to anybody about ethics, is now saying, well, he thinks women shouldn't have abortions. Well, frankly, I don't care what he thinks. And I just hope that this person who's now been nominated... NOEL KING, HOST: Kavanaugh. SARAH WEDDINGTON: ...Kavanaugh, will be turned down. NOEL KING, HOST: Sarah Weddington was a 26-year-old attorney from Texas when she argued Roe v. Wade in front of the Supreme Court and won. Ms. Weddington, thank you so much for your time. SARAH WEDDINGTON: Of course.

Sarah Weddington, who argued Roe v. Wade and won in 1973, talks to Noel King about how Judge Brett Kavanaugh might impact abortion rights if he is confirmed as Supreme Court justice.

Sarah Weddington, die 1973 für Roe v. Wade argumentierte und gewann, spricht mit Noel King darüber, wie sich Richter Brett Kavanaugh auf die Abtreibungsrechte auswirken könnte, wenn er als Richter am Obersten Gerichtshof bestätigt wird.

莎拉·威丁顿在1973年为罗v. 韦德案辩护并获胜，她与诺埃尔·金讨论了布雷特·卡瓦诺法官如果被任命为最高法院法官可能会如何影响堕胎权。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: One of the people trying to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach from a cave in Thailand has died. He's a former special forces diver in the Thailand navy. And he died as authorities tried to step up their efforts to rescue those trapped inside the cave. Heavy rains are expected on Saturday. And, of course, it was heavy rain that flooded the cave. Michael Sullivan reports from the Tham Luang cave complex. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: The Thai navy SEAL commander on the ground, Admiral Apakorn Yuukongkaew, broke the news of Samarn Poonan's death at a news conference here this morning. APAKORN YUUKONGKAEW: (Speaking Thai). MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: The admiral said conditions inside the cave were very difficult and that Samarn had been laying oxygen tanks along a possible exit route when he lost consciousness on the way out. His buddy tried to revive him but failed. It was a grim reminder of the complex nature of any effort to extract the boys, who are some 2 miles inside the cave, where some passageways remain underwater. But the admiral said the effort to rescue the boys would continue without interruption. And there were signs of progress today, despite the fatality overnight. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: I'm standing in front of four pipes that have been pumping water out of the cave complex for most of the last week. And today there's far less water coming out of these pipes than there has been the rest of the week, which means to me that they're succeeding in pumping a lot of water out of the cave and getting the water level inside down. And that's good news for any attempt to rescue the boys. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: But rescuers know that their options are limited and time short. The heavy rain expected to resume again on Saturday could flood the cave even more and force rescuers to abandon positions they've set up inside the cave and could even reach the place where the boys found refuge after they disappeared nearly two weeks ago. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: At the nearby Mae Sai Prasitsart School, classmates of two of the trapped boys, Dom and Mik, had a message for their friends. JINDA SUEMUENG: (Speaking Thai). MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Thirteen-year-old Jinda Suemueng said, "I want to tell Dom and Mik, please come out safely with everyone else, and may the spirits protect you." Thirteen-year-old Nuttawut Pongtui was a bit more impatient. NUTTAWUT PONGTUI: (Speaking Thai). MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: "Dom and Mik, stay safe. And I hope everyone else stays safe, too," he said. "And if you can come out today, please do." For NPR News, I'm Michael Sullivan at the Tham Luang cave complex, Chiang Rai, Thailand.

A former diver with an elite Thai navy unit has died while taking part in operations to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach who have been trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand.

Ein ehemaliger Taucher einer thailändischen Eliteeinheit der Marine ist bei der Rettung von 12 Jungen und ihrem Fußballtrainer, die in einer überfluteten Höhle in Thailand eingeschlossen waren, ums Leben gekommen.

一名前潜水员和一支精锐的泰国海军部队在救援12名被困在泰国一个被洪水淹没的洞穴中的男孩和他们的足球教练时死亡。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Venezuela's crisis can be captured by the staggering amount of people who have left the country. The U.N. says that number is 2.3 million in just the last four years. One main reason is because there isn't enough food. Several neighboring countries are now tightening their borders as people keep leaving Venezuela. John Otis sent this report from Colombia. AILSA CHANG, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: (Foreign language spoken). AILSA CHANG, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: These Venezuelan refugees have just crossed into the Colombian border town of Cucuta. They are now on their way to Bogota 350 miles away, and they're are walking. Refugees line the highway leading out of Cucuta. They drag roller suitcases and carry duffel bags. Some wear flip-flops. GALIANIS RIOS: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Galianis Rios, who's walking with 12 fellow refugees, explains that smugglers demanded most of their money to take them across the border into Colombia. Buses zoom by, but Rios and her colleagues can't afford bus fare. They sold their watches and other valuables for food, but it's running out. The U.N. says that about half of all Venezuelan refugees are malnourished. They also require medical care and are desperate for work. That's putting a huge strain on the countries they're arriving in, mainly Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil, which are struggling to provide jobs and health care for their own populations. Kyle Johnson is based in Colombia for the International Crisis Group. KYLE JOHNSON: A million Venezuelan refugees in a year to or up to 2 million in the last five years or so is well beyond the capacity of any South American nation of what they can handle in terms of refugees. And so that's what makes it a crisis. JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Tensions are rising. Earlier this month, Brazilians burned a refugee camp on the border after accusing Venezuelans of assaulting a local shopkeeper. Ecuador and Peru plan to require that incoming Venezuelans carry passports. But Johnson says most lack the money for passports, while paper and ink shortages in Venezuela mean fewer are being printed. KYLE JOHNSON: And it's denying the reality that most Venezuelans just because of the situation in Venezuela do not have access to a passport. They simply don't. JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Back on the highway, the Venezuelans walking to Bogota don't realize what they're in for. GALIANIS RIOS: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: Rios, who is 18 and left Venezuela because she could no longer afford her college tuition payments, estimates it will take a week to walk to Bogota. The journey actually takes more than a month and involves climbing mountain peaks 10,000 feet high. But Rios' group is determined to make it. JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #4: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: As they walk, they encourage one another, sharing water, bread and cigarettes. They also meet some friendly Colombians. JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #5: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: This taxi driver agrees to take Rios and several other refugees about 10 miles down the road to a river. There they take much-needed baths and soak the blisters on their feet. JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #6: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: They decide to camp here for the night, though their camping gear consists of just a few blankets. As the sun sets, one of the refugees, Bian Lopez, recalls that during economic booms, Venezuela opened its doors to throngs of migrants. He hopes neighboring countries will return the favor. BIAN LOPEZ: (Foreign language spoken). JOHN OTIS, BYLINE: "They should lend us a hand," he says, "because we Venezuelans are suffering." For NPR News, I'm John Otis in Cucuta, Colombia.

As hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages and joblessness have worsened, Venezuelans are leaving in record numbers. Many South American countries have tightened their borders to stem the influx.

Da sich Hyperinflation, Nahrungsmittel- und Medikamentenmangel sowie Arbeitslosigkeit verschlimmert haben, verlassen Venezolaner in Rekordzahlen. Viele südamerikanische Länder haben ihre Grenzen verschärft, um den Zustrom einzudämmen.

随着恶性通货膨胀、食品和药品短缺以及失业情况的恶化，委内瑞拉人正在以创纪录的数量离开。许多南美国家已经收紧了边境，以阻止难民涌入。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: John McCain's desk in the Senate chamber is now draped in black fabric with a vase of white roses on top marking the senator's death this past weekend. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We've been exploring McCain's long political legacy, and now we're going to look at one of the most controversial parts of it - a choice he made in August of 2008. McCain was behind in the presidential race against Barack Obama and looking to shake things up when he chose the little-known Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. SARAH PALIN: I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office. My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school. And my husband and I - we both grew up working with our hands. I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That hockey mom from Alaska would go on to help lead a revolution inside the Republican Party that eventually carved a path for Donald Trump. NPR's lead political editor Domenico Montanaro's here to talk more about this. Hi, Domenico. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Hey there, Ari. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Were there already signs in 2008 of where the Republican party was heading? DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Oh, you bet. I mean, when you covered John McCain and Sarah Palin, and you went out on the campaign trail, it was obvious. Palin routinely drew crowds that were larger than McCain himself. You knew something, at that point, was going on. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: A lot of it was indicative or symbolized in how differently Palin talked and presented herself and how the crowds reacted to her. You think about that one big moment where John McCain stood up to the woman who said that Barack Obama couldn't be trusted and that he was an Arab. And McCain won all this praise for saying, you know, look. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: He's a good man. Yeah. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: He's a good man and a family man. Palin was out on the campaign trail saying Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. So there was a very different way that they talked about politics, and that's where the party was headed. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And what happened after the 2008 campaign was over with the rise of the Tea Party? DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Well, of course, McCain and Palin lost in that election. But it was really just the beginning. I covered the Tea Party a lot in 2010. I remember, you know, 10,000 people showing up to the Boston Common to see Sarah Palin talk. There were people with signs that said, I can see the midterms from my house, you know? And there was so much energy and enthusiasm for her. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: And when the health care bill passed the way it did, that was really a unifying moment for a lot of these folks who felt like the - President Obama's government was going too far. And Palin was a symbol for them to be able to hold up to say they disagreed with these policies. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And, as we've said, there was a lot of bad blood between Trump and McCain, and Palin kind of paved the way for Trump. Early in the 2016 campaign, Trump said McCain was not a war hero, and Palin endorsed Trump despite that. So how did John McCain look back on the Palin choice towards the end of his life? DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Well, yeah. There's that. But, you know, Palin, of course, was somebody who, you know, McCain tried to sort of be polite about. Like, he didn't try to go and say that, you know, he regretted the pick. He never really wound up saying that. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: In his book "The Restless Wave," he talks about how he wished he had picked Joe Lieberman, who was the senator from Connecticut, a former Democrat - an independent/Democrat - because they were friends. They believed in the same kind of big-picture things when it came to America's role in the world. But his advisers told him that it would be too difficult to pick a Democrat to be able to hold the Republican base together, and he went along with Palin. But he said that, my gut told me to ignore my advisers' advice, and I wished I had. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Now of Palin in particular, he said she stumbled in some interviews and had a few misjudgments in the glare of ceaseless - of the ceaseless spotlight and unblinking cameras. Those missteps, too, are on me. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So in the final years of his career, as the party became more like Palin and less like McCain, how did McCain adapt? DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Well, there were times when McCain really kind of put his core values to the side. I mean, he had to win re-election in 2010. And people might remember that ad where he's walking along the border with the - of the Arizona fence saying, we're going to build the dang fence. Sure sounds a lot like Donald Trump and how he's going to build the wall. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Now McCain came back around and became the, quote, unquote, "maverick" again. But he is somebody with a very conservative record. I mean, he - there were moments, yes, where he bucked his party, where he has bucked President Trump, where he bucked George W. Bush, frankly, but also somebody who was a conservative at heart. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's NPR lead political editor Domenico Montanaro. Thanks, Domenico. DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: You're welcome.

The late Sen. John McCain pulled Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin out of obscurity as his running mate in 2008. She helped usher in a revolution inside the Republican Party that left McCain's approach behind.

Der verstorbene Senator John McCain holte die Gouverneurin von Alaska, Sarah Palin, 2008 als seine Kandidatin aus der Versenkung. Sie trug dazu bei, eine Revolution innerhalb der Republikanischen Partei einzuleiten, die McCains Ansatz hinter sich ließ.

2008年，已故参议员约翰·麦凯恩将阿拉斯加州州长莎拉·佩林从默默无闻的处境中带了出来，让她成为他的竞选搭档。她帮助共和党内部迎来了一场革命，而这场革命将麦凯恩的方针抛在了脑后。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The FBI needs a new home. Its current headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington is literally crumbling. And by all accounts, it doesn't meet the needs of the agency in a post-9/11 world. Members of Congress thought they had a deal to relocate the headquarters to a Washington suburb and sell the valuable downtown site to developers. The Trump administration abruptly canceled that plan. And now a government watchdog has raised questions about why. NPR's Brian Naylor has that story. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: The General Services Administration, the GSA, is in essence the government's landlord. It's been deeply involved in the ongoing debate about a replacement for the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the bureau's deteriorating, brutalist-style headquarters, which sits on a prime location on Pennsylvania Avenue. Now the inspector general of the GSA says in a report that the head of the agency, Emily Murphy, may have misled Congress. During a hearing, she failed to disclose that she had met with President Trump at the White House to discuss the FBI project. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois questioned Murphy about the decision to cancel the plan to move the FBI out of Washington during an April hearing. Here he is asking for the second time if the White House was involved in the decision. MIKE QUIGLEY: But again, to your knowledge, was the president or anyone at the White House involved in those discussions either with your predecessors or people you're working with now or yourself? EMILY MURPHY: Sir, to my - the - this direction that we got came from the FBI. It was the FBI that directed GSA as to what its requirements would be. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: In fact, what Murphy failed to mention was that she did indeed meet with Trump at the White House this past January and had two other discussions with White House officials about the project. She told the inspector general that her answers during the hearing were literally true. But the IG disagreed in its report, calling them incomplete and possibly misleading. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: The cliche goes the three most important things in real estate are location, location, location. The president's involvement in the FBI headquarters discussions are noteworthy because of his ownership of the Trump International Hotel, which happens to be also on the same stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue as the FBI. Democratic Congressman Gerald Connolly of Virginia requested the IG report. He says the government's decision to cancel the FBI's move doesn't pass the smell test. GERALD CONNOLLY: I think two things are going on. One is that President Trump personally does not want the FBI headquarters site redeveloped, possibly with a hotel and a restaurant, to compete with this hotel almost across the street. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: The second reason, says Connolly, is the president's ongoing feud with the FBI. GERALD CONNOLLY: I think he didn't want to, quote, "reward them," unquote, with a new, functional headquarters. BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: The inspector general's report also says the GSA has underreported the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the FBI headquarters on its current site by about half a billion dollars. The suburban Washington district Connolly represents might have been the site of the new FBI headquarters. Two other sites being considered were in Maryland. But Connolly says his concern is more about what he calls the tainted process surrounding the decision to stay on Pennsylvania Avenue. He's called for a hearing in which the GSA head would be brought in to testify under oath about the president's involvement. Brian Naylor, NPR News, Washington.

A watchdog says a government agency failed to disclose the involvement of President Trump in a decision not to move the FBI out of its location in Washington, D.C., next to a hotel the president owns.

Ein Wachhund sagt, eine Regierungsbehörde habe es versäumt, die Beteiligung von Präsident Trump an einer Entscheidung offenzulegen, das FBI nicht von seinem Standort in Washington, DC, neben einem Hotel, das dem Präsidenten gehört, zu verlegen.

监察部门称，政府机构未披露特朗普总统是否参与联邦调查局不搬离华盛顿特区酒店的决议，该酒店紧邻特朗普总统的酒店。

IRA FLATOW, host: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow. This week, researchers looking at new images of the moon say there's evidence that the moon shrank, but only by a little bit, about a billion years ago. IRA FLATOW, host: The images were taken by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. It's been working hard for over a year now, snapping pictures of our nearest neighbor. And part of the orbiter's mission is to find landing sites for the next moon mission, if there is one, or to find places that would be potential pit stops if we go to Mars. IRA FLATOW, host: But aside from helping scientists look for a landing pad, pictures from the orbiter are filling in some gaps in our understanding of the moon's geology, an area we know surprisingly little about, researchers say. IRA FLATOW, host: Joining me now to talk more about it is my guest. Thomas R. Watters is a senior scientist at the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies. That's at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, and his research was published in the journal Science. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. IRA FLATOW, host: Dr. THOMAS R. WATTERS (Senior Scientist, Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum): Oh, thank you, it's a great pleasure to be here. I'm a real fan of the show. IRA FLATOW, host: Oh, thank you very much. That's very kind of you. How do you know the moon is shrinking? Dr. WATTERS: We know because we have used the very high resolution images obtained by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter cameras to look for a specific kind of land form called a lobate scarp. And these are basically sort of stair-steps in the landscape. If you were on the ground looking at one of these things, it would look like it would just rise up and then sort of flatten out in the back scarp of the area of landform. Dr. WATTERS: So these things are actually caused by thrust faults. And thrust faults are structures that are formed when the crust actually is pushed together and breaks, and then part of the crust is actually pushed up or thrust and creates this scarp-face or cliff. IRA FLATOW, host: So it's like you see a ridgeline of cliffs. Dr. WATTERS: That's right, you see these very sort of linear cliff-like structures that are indicating that the crust has actually shrank. IRA FLATOW, host: And how much shrinking did it do, and is it still shrinking? Dr. WATTERS: That's an excellent question. What we've looked at is the number of these scarps. And I just wanted to let you know that we first knew about these scarps from Apollo-era photography of the camera that was flown on the Apollo, panoramic I'm sorry, on the Apollo missions, the 15, 16 and 17 Apollo missions, it was called the panoramic camera, and it was this really fantastic camera that could take very high-resolution pictures of the surface. Dr. WATTERS: And we first detected these landforms, these lobate scarps, in those images, again, 40 years ago or so. But those images were confined to a very small area of the moon, and in the Equatorial Zone. And what's been fantastic about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera is it's allowed us now to see well beyond those areas. Dr. WATTERS: And some of these scarps that we've found are actually sitting at very high latitudes. In fact, some of them are sitting very near the lunar poles. Dr. WATTERS: The reason we need these high-resolution images is because the fault scarps are not very big. They're typically only several kilometers long and maybe tens of meters high. So if you add up all the contraction that has occurred on the ones that we know about, it adds up to about 100-meters-or-so change or reduction of the radius of the moon. So it's not a whole lot. IRA FLATOW, host: Wow, I'm surprised it's even detectible at such a small level like that. And what does it tell us about the moon that we didn't know before? Dr. WATTERS: Well, it tells us that something global has happened, I mean, because again, we didn't know that these thrust-fault scarps occurred everywhere on the moon until we had the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera images. Dr. WATTERS: Now that we know that, we know it must be related to a global process, and the most plausible global process is interior cooling. So as the interior of the moon cooled, it contracted, and that contraction ends up causing the crust of the moon to have to adjust to that decrease in volume and creates the thrust-fault scarps that we're looking at. IRA FLATOW, host: So is this something new, that the interior of the moon was hot enough and could cool, or what is different about the makeup of the moon that this implies? Dr. WATTERS: I think what's new is the fact that, again, we now know that we speculated and were pretty sure that the moon was cooling. Like every other object in the solar system, they pretty much started off hot and then cool over time. Dr. WATTERS: But what's really interesting about these young, these thrust-fault scarps is the fact that, one, that they're young. We know from looking at cross-cutting relationships between the fault scarp and these very small-diameter craters that the scarps can't be any more than about a billion years old. Dr. WATTERS: But the fact is that they look much more recent than that. They're very pristine, very un-degraded. They look literally like they have, they could have formed yesterday. IRA FLATOW, host: And it's believed that the moon was formed when a Mars-sized planetoid banged into the Earth and ripped it off the Earth, correct? Dr. WATTERS: That's right. That's the most popular theory right now for the origin of the moon. IRA FLATOW, host: Does this discovery do anything to change that idea? Dr. WATTERS: No, I don't think so. I think what it does is it tells us that the initial starting temperature of the moon was not hot enough to have melted the entire planet. It was probably hot but not hot enough, and just hot enough maybe to have melted the outer portion of the crust of the moon but not the entire interior and not all at once. Dr. WATTERS: So it tells us something about the thermal history of the moon. It tells us that the moon has cooled. But it hasn't cooled by as much as some other planets in the solar system, for example Mercury. Dr. WATTERS: Mercury has these same sort of lobate-scarp structures, but they're much, much bigger. Instead of being typically several kilometers long, scarps on Mercury will be hundreds of kilometers long, and instead of being just tens of meters high, they can be over a kilometer high. Dr. WATTERS: So Mercury, by comparison, has gone through a lot more contraction than the moon has, and that tells us that something very different happened about the way the moon and Mercury evolved. IRA FLATOW, host: The Apollo astronauts also left, on the surface, if I remember correctly, some earthquake, moonquake detectors. Dr. WATTERS: That's exactly right. IRA FLATOW, host: And there have been some moonquakes that have happened. And now that you look at this, would that now seem logical if the crust is moving, or it's contracting, that there would be these little quakes? Dr. WATTERS: Well, that's one of the really, really intriguing questions about this because these scarps do appear to be very young. The fact that they are so young really suggests that the moon may be still tectonically active. Dr. WATTERS: And we know from four seismic stations that were put on the moon that the moon does have moonquakes. The really, again, interesting question is: Are any of those moonquakes and about 30 of them or so were shallow earthquakes, or moonquakes I should say. And the really interesting question is: Are any of those moonquakes related to the development or growth of these very young thrust faults? IRA FLATOW, host: So, you know, you hear about rethinking our ideas about the moon, about how much water there might be. Now you're adding another tectonic question. Dr. WATTERS: Right. IRA FLATOW, host: It's not as boring a place as we once led it to be. Dr. WATTERS: Yes, I think it's been a misconception that the moon is this geologically dead object, that everything of significance that happened geologically on the moon happened billions of years ago. But I think that's really just turning out not to be the case. And these very young thrust faults that are globally distributed really are suggesting that the moon may still be tectonically active today. IRA FLATOW, host: If you were to treat the moon as a new place to explore then, what would you what kind of probe would you send back to the moon to further this research? Dr. WATTERS: Well, it would be really fantastic to have another set of operating seismic stations on the moon. That would really help us to determine whether some of these faults that we're looking at are actually active or not. And it would help us figure out the internal structure of the moon much better than we know now. IRA FLATOW, host: And is anything like that planned or anything in the works? Dr. WATTERS: Yes, it's actually being discussed. And it's one of those future possibilities that I'm very hopeful will come about. IRA FLATOW, host: If I parse your language, to me it says it's a great idea, we don't have any money for it yet. Dr. WATTERS: Well, money is always an issue. And of course, it's a big solar system, and we have many objects that we're trying to explore. But the moon is a fascinating place. I mean, it's our closest celestrial(ph) body. Even though it has been the most intensely studied, in some respects, in many respects we know still very little about it. IRA FLATOW, host: It's funny that from what I understand that one of these little plateaus was actually a place where some of the Apollo astronauts drove around in a little moon rover there. Dr. WATTERS: That's exactly right. One of these ones that we knew about from the Apollo era was very close to the Apollo 17 landing site, and astronauts Cernan and Schmitt actually drove their roving vehicle up the scarp face. And actually, as they tried to drive straight up the scarp, they lost traction and had to actually start zigging and zagging to get up the scarp. Dr. WATTERS: So they are they have the great distinction of being the only two humans to have ever explored an extraterrestrial fault scarp. IRA FLATOW, host: Wow, and did they know that's what it was before they went up it? Dr. WATTERS: I think they were pretty sure, and Jack Schmitt, who specifically or especially who was a geologist, I think recognized that this was very likely a fault scarp. IRA FLATOW, host: And you say it's unusual that you find it so even close to the northern pole of the moon. Dr. WATTERS: Well, that's been one of the really, again, exciting developments. We've only imaged less than 10 percent of the moon with these really high-resolution Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera images. Dr. WATTERS: And so having found scarps that are near the poles and elsewhere on the moon with that very small coverage so far is really exciting because it means we're probably going to find a lot more of these as the mission continues and we return more and more images. IRA FLATOW, host: Well, mind if we follow along with you on this, Dr. Watters? Dr. WATTERS: Oh, absolutely. I'd love it. IRA FLATOW, host: All right. Well, you're more than welcome to come back and talk about your latest findings. Dr. WATTERS: Well, thank you very much. IRA FLATOW, host: Good luck to you. Thanks for coming on. Dr. WATTERS: My pleasure. IRA FLATOW, host: You're welcome. Thomas R. Watters is a senior scientist at the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, and that's at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington. IRA FLATOW, host: We're going to take a break and come closer to home. We're going to leave the moon and go back to the Gulf of Mexico and talk about how difficult scientists are having doing research there, the difficulties they're having there and being kept away from a lot of the places they'd like to go. IRA FLATOW, host: Our number, 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. What's your view on this? Give us a call or send us a tweet. We'll be right back after this break. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.

Scientists say images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has been circling the moon for more than a year, show that the moon contracted about a billion years ago, relatively recently in geologic time. Space scientist Thomas Watters describes the lunar images.

Wissenschaftler sagen, dass Bilder des Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, der den Mond seit mehr als einem Jahr umkreist, zeigen, dass der Mond vor etwa einer Milliarde Jahren geschrumpft ist, also vor relativ kurzer Zeit in geologischer Zeit. Der Weltraumforscher Thomas Watters beschreibt die Mondbilder.

科学家表示，绕月飞行一年多的月球勘测轨道飞行器拍摄的图像显示，月球大约在10亿年前收缩，相对而言是在地质年代的最近时期。太空科学家托马斯沃特斯对这些月球图像进行了说明。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. We'll get to our Roundtable in just a moment, but first we turn our attention to the Middle East and the crisis that continues there. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Hezbollah functions as both a political party in Lebanon and an armed militant group. The latest wave of violence in the Middle East began when Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. But now civilian casualties are mounting. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This weekend, Hezbollah rockets killed eight civilians in Israel's third largest city, Haifa. Israel has responded with airstrikes in Beirut and southern Lebanon, killing at least 45 people and injuring dozens more. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joining us now to discuss the origins and diplomacy in this crisis, from WBEZ in Chicago, Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell. She's a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Welcome, Melissa. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): Good morning. How are you? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm great. So at this point, how many nations are involved either in the fighting or receiving families fleeing from this fighting? Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): Well, this is important in order to understand really the scope of the kind of tragic and very dangerous information that the Middle East now finds itself in. I mean, Israel and Lebanon are the two kind of obvious nations, because the bombing is occurring back and forth between them. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): But Syria is also involved. Syria is the place where Lebanese refugees are fleeing. Syria is also possibly implicated in its relationship with Hezbollah. And Iran is also probably part of this story because of the tight relationship between Iran and Hezbollah. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): So there are at least four nations - Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran - that are involved. But obviously, these are a cluster of small, tightly connected nations here in the Middle East. And so the entire region is really in conflict. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And the entire world is starting to weigh in on this. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have defended Israel's use of force as self-defense. This puts the U.S. in opposition to counterparts at the G-8 Summit as well as allies, including Switzerland, France, Pakistan and Russia, who have said the force is excessive. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Has the U.S. broken ranks with the majority of world opinion, and if so, what risks does this hold for the U.S.? Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): Our sort of willingness to be a unilateral actor in international political affairs is part of what makes this situation so dangerous for the rest of the world. Now the fact that we are taking sides with our long-time allies, Israel is probably not that surprising to any party involved. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): But the other question is whether or not we now, the United States, has the capacity to act as a diplomatic force that might be able to help bring peace in this tense situation. And the reality of our position within world opinion right now is all part of what is going to make it much more difficult, for example, for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to do any sort of diplomatic work on this front. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And yet the president of Lebanon is still calling on the United States to help bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So what would that kind of U.S. intervention look like and how likely is it to happen? Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): Well, I mean I think it's highly likely to happen that we're going to intervene diplomatically, that we are in fact probably already doing so, both through the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as well as through other means and measures. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): But when the people of Lebanon are right now in a conflict - I'm talking about the people of Lebanon. Because there is on one hand the state, right, the government of Lebanon, and then there's Hezbollah, which is a non state actor, which has a great deal of support among the people of both Lebanon, Syria and the other surrounding Arab nations. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): So the question is whether or not our traditional methods of working with states, of working with governments, the notions of what constrains a government from behaving in one way or another simply does not work with non state actors who are interested in pursuing more ideological goals. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Final question for you. The government of Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran has been developing a nuclear program, which they say is not weapons-based. Does this up the stakes? Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): I think the stakes in this region have always been incredibly high. But more importantly I think is this question of how we are in fact going to start talking about and thinking about a fair and balanced way to talk about what's going on in the Middle East. And particularly for listeners who are, you know, confused by all the different states and all the different actors and the notion of different religious traditions, this is a time when we have to got to talk about peaceful coexistence on this planet. The idea that we could somehow bring massive force to crush one side will be absolutely the wrong way to go. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Melissa Harris Lacewell is a professor at the University of Chicago's Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture. Thank you so much for joining us. Professor MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): Thank you.

Violence in the Middle East escalates, with Israel and Hezbollah trading deadly attacks. Farai Chideya talks with Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, about the conflict, and what role the U.S. could play in a potential resolution.

Die Gewalt im Nahen Osten eskaliert, Israel und die Hisbollah liefern sich tödliche Angriffes. Farai Chideya spricht mit Melissa Harris Lacewell, Professorin für Politikwissenschaft an der University of Chicago, über den Konflikt und darüber, welche Rolle die USA bei einer möglichen Lösung spielen könnten.

随着以色列和真主党互相发起致命袭击，中东暴力逐步升级。法莱·奇德亚采访了芝加哥大学政治学教授梅丽莎·哈里斯·莱斯维尔，讨论此次冲突，以及在可能的解决方案中美国能够发挥的作用。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya, and this is NEWS AND NOTES. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Federal health officials may soon recommend that family physicians make HIV testing a part of every routine checkup. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is circulating draft guidelines that would recommend that everyone in the U.S. from 13 to 64 years old be screened for the virus. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: The guidelines reflect that new populations are now at highest risk for the virus, including African-Americans. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Sarah Varney reports. SARAH VARNEY reporting: The CDC estimates about a quarter of the one million Americans infected with HIV don't know it. And that group is most responsible for spreading the virus. SARAH VARNEY reporting: Federal officials say by making HIV screening routine, physicians can detect infection earlier, get patients started on life-saving medication and contain the epidemic. Ms. JENNIFER CATES (Director of HIV Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation): There's a feeling that we're missing people. We're missing an opportunity to screen people for HIV in healthcare settings because doctors are not asking people if they want to get tested or people are not asking to be tested. VARNEY: Jennifer Cates is director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C. Ms. JENNIFER CATES (Director of HIV Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation): So the idea behind this new shift is to make it much more a part of what people experience when they go to a healthcare provider like they experience with other kinds of tests. VARNEY: That's a big change from how HIV testing is currently done. But over the last quarter century, America's AIDS epidemic has reached into new populations and physicians can no longer rely on traditional risk factors. Heterosexuals, teenagers and minorities are at far greater risk of infection. In fact, though African-Americans are about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they now make up half of all new infections. VARNEY: The CDC's draft recommendations include other sweeping changes. For example, they eliminate requirements for written consent and pre-test counseling. AIDS patient advocates say making HIV testing a normal part of healthcare will ease the stigma still associated with the disease, but they question whether overtaxed primary care physicians are equipped to deal with HIV testing. VARNEY: Dr. Carla Kakutani is a family doctor in rural Winters, west of Sacramento, and the president-elect of the California Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Kakutani says insurance companies don't pay doctors to counsel patients. Dr. CARLA KAKUTANI (President-Elect, California Academy of Family Physicians): A lot of that stuff is done on the primary care physician's tab. Particularly if you're in a solo practice, you, you know, have a lot of overhead to cover, that's time spent that, you know, doesn't bring any money to cover your overhead. VARNEY: The CDC's recommendations are voluntary, but state health departments, doctors and especially insurers look at them closely. Testing all Americans age 13 to 64 would cost health insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. And private insurers may decide near-universal testing is not worth the price tag. VARNEY: Jeff Sheehy, San Francisco's mayoral adviser on AIDS, isn't convinced it's a good investment either. Sheehy doubts that universal testing will help identify the 25 percent of people who are unknowingly infected. Mr. JEFF SHEEHY (HIV/AIDS Policy Adviser, San Francisco Mayor's Office): It only really works if people are seeing a healthcare provider. And if you look at the populations that are most are at risk for HIV, they tend to be folks who don't have the best access to the healthcare system. Youth, people of color, low-income folks, urban poor... VARNEY: And in California, undocumented workers without insurance. But perhaps the biggest question raised by the proposed guidelines is who will pay for treatment if those HIV cases are identified. Mr. CRAIG THOMPSON (Executive Director, AIDS Project Los Angeles): Hypothetically, let's say that we suddenly were able to identify across the country 250,000 more people with HIV. We do not have the resources in Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York, and certainly not in South Carolina, to treat those 250,000 people. VARNEY: Many U.S. cities have long waiting lists for government-funded treatment. And on those lists are people who want to buy individual health insurance plans but can't because, with few exceptions, private health insurance companies will not insure them. VARNEY: The CDC's final recommendations on HIV testing are expected to be approved in September. VARNEY: For NPR News, I'm Sarah Varney.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon recommend that family physicians make HIV testing part of a routine check-up.

Die Zentren für die Kontrolle und Prävention von Krankheiten könnten Hausärzten bald empfehlen, HIV-Tests zu einem Teil der Routineuntersuchungen zu machen.

美国疾病控制与预防中心可能很快会建议家庭医生将HIV检测作为常规体检的一部分。

TONY COX, host: And now for the Opinion Page. TONY COX, host: As the United States begins to draw down its troop levels in Iraq and build up its operations in Afghanistan, the combined cost of these two wars on American taxpayers is close to a trillion dollars. The human toll is growing. More than 4,000 U.S. service members have died in the Iraq war, more than 1,000 in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. At the same time, the federal deficit has ballooned during these two conflicts and is likely to be felt by generations to come. It is a heavy price to pay, but NPR senior news analyst Ted Koppel says these wartime sacrifices need to be shared by more of Americans. He'll be here to explain in a moment. TONY COX, host: But we also want to hear your view. Are we sacrificing enough for the war? Should we be doing more? If so, what? What sacrifices are you willing to make to support the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Give us a call. Our number is 800-989-8255. The email address: talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. TONY COX, host: Ted Koppel, joining us now from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Ted, nice to have you back again. TED KOPPEL: Thank you, Tony. Always nice to be with you. TONY COX, host: I'm anticipating a very interesting conversation with you today, and some callers that I'm sure will come in and offer their opinion. But let's begin with this: what is it that is unique, Ted, about these two wars, in your view, in the way Americans are paying the price? TED KOPPEL: Well, first of all, in your introduction, Tony, you suggested that we were already all making a sacrifice in paying for these wars. And I would suggest to you that we're paying for them essentially the way we pay for our houses and our cars. We're putting off the real payment. We're putting it on a, either on a mortgage on a credit card. This is the first time in the history of the United States that neither war, neither the Iraq war nor the Afghanistan war, has been underwritten by a special tax for the war. All wars previously have had special taxes. TED KOPPEL: President Bush didn't raise any additional taxes. President Obama hasn't raised any additional taxes. Essentially, the more than $1 trillion that we have spent on these two wars thus far is money that we have borrowed principally from the Chinese, the Japanese and countries out in the Persian Gulf. TONY COX, host: So what exactly would you like to see? Is it a war tax, where people are paying for this, or is it something beyond just that? TED KOPPEL: Let me put it this way, Tony. I do not think that any nation should go to war simply on the backs of a few hundred thousand men and women and their families. When a nation goes to war, it needs to be as an entity. And by and large, 90 to 95 percent of the American public, probably more than that if you look at the real numbers, are paying absolutely nothing for this war. We are not paying anything additionally in money. We are not paying anything in terms of personal sacrifice. The young men and women who are over there fighting the war, they are. They're paying. Their families are paying. Their loved ones are paying. They are paying in terms of having to fight a war over and over and over again. They thought when they volunteered - many of them - that they might have to go under a war zone once or twice. So many of these young men and women have had to go back three times, four times, five times. TED KOPPEL: And, you know, frankly, we're not paying for the war financially. We're not paying for the war in terms of a draft so that there is an equitable number of young men and women who are going over from all branches of society. We're not paying for it in terms of personal sacrifice. We're not paying for it in terms of rationing. We are giving up essentially nothing to fight the war. TED KOPPEL: Now, one more thing, Tony, and then I'll stop babbling on and give you a chance to actually ask a question or two. My point here is not to get into a debate with anyone as to whether we should be in these wars in the first place. I am simply saying that if and when the United States goes to war, it has to do so with the backing of and the support of - and support is not just a verbal thing. It's not a rhetorical device. Support means giving something up, giving, you know, getting a little skin on the game. TONY COX, host: Now, would you say and I know you just made it very clear, you don't want to get into a debate about the pros and cons of the war, nor do I. But if a person wanted to or if the country began to support the war in the ways that you are suggesting, financially and otherwise, would that not put them then in a position of supporting what is to date still an unpopular war? TED KOPPEL: Let me put it this way, Tony. If, in fact, we are going to do what the Constitution calls for, which is to have a declaration of war by the representatives of the people, by the Congress, that's all well and good. We've gotten out of the habit of doing that. You know, I think, World War II was probably the last time that Congress actually voted on whether or not to go to war. So it becomes exceptionally difficult to gauge in any way, even by the measure of whether our representatives in Congress have voted for or against it, whether we are behind the war or not. TED KOPPEL: The reality is, however, we are engaged in two wars. And just parenthetically, anyone who thinks that we are really out of Iraq in terms of war-fighting really isn't paying very close attention. We'll still have 50,000 troops over there and they will still be engaged in different forms of combat. TONY COX, host: As I told you, Ted Koppel, people are beginning to respond to the comments that they are hearing from you today. Here's one. This comes from Maxwell(ph). Maxwell says, how about a war tax of $1,000 per year for everyone, except for families of armed service members? What do you think of that? TED KOPPEL: Well, you know, I don't know what the economics of that would be, but it's sort of getting into the spirit of it. My point is, when you talk about, if we were to support a tax, for example, for the war, wouldn't we - thereby being lending - wouldn't we, in effect, be expressing our opinion on the war and saying, I'm in favor of the war? The point, Tony, is our children, our grandchildren are going to be paying for this war anyway. What bothers me about it is that we, the people who are living in this time and place, in whose name or in whose names these wars are being fought, we are not paying for it. TED KOPPEL: When the Chinese finally come back to us with their Treasury bills that they have been buying from us to the tune of $1 trillion, and they say, we'd like our money back, who's going to be paying for that? Our kids are going to be paying for it. Our grandchildren are going to be paying for it. Americans will pay for these wars eventually. I'm simply saying we're not paying for them now. TONY COX, host: Here is a caller that we'll go to. This is Lynn(ph) from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Lynn, welcome. You're on to TALK OF THE NATION with Tony Cox and Ted Koppel. LYNN (Caller): Hi. Thank you. I'll make it real brief. Ted, I agree with you completely. I was drafted in 1968, went to Vietnam. And strangely enough, I think one of the best things we could do is bring back the draft. It makes it more equitable. I doubt that we would have been in Iraq if there had been a draft, and if, you know, the children of influential, the more well-to-do people, had, you know, faced the prospect of their sons going. The other problem that I have right now is Blackwater and all of these other, you know, basically, mercenaries. How are they perceived? Are they perceived as American military? So those are my comments. TONY COX, host: Thank you, Lynn, for that. What about that, Ted? TED KOPPEL: Excellent points, both of them. I would simply say, in response to the first point, that the children of the well-to-do, the children of the influential I mean, I'm a child of that era too, and I was just a little bit too old and I was married and had two children by the time I might have been drafted to go to Vietnam. But the fact of the matter is that those of us who had the wherewithal - I was in school. I was in college. I was in graduate school. Then, when I came out of graduate school, I got married and I had a child. So I was always deferred, deferred, deferred, and I never had to go. Now, I ended up spending three and half years in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, but as a journalist, not as so soldier. So that's my first answer. TED KOPPEL: The second answer with response to the Blackwater types, what the gentleman refers to as the mercenaries, he's absolutely right. It is another way that our politicians have found of pretending that there is no pain involved in fighting a war. One of the great difficulties that we confront today is that we have a military that is really too small and inadequate to do all the tasks that we require of them. And so we are hiring I don't know what the precise number is. TED KOPPEL: I know about a year ago that when you looked at all the civilians who were being hired to fulfill tasks that ranged from the protection of the ambassador and senior embassy officials, to doing laundry and driving trucks, you had more of those people who were hired in Iraq than you actually had troops over there. At a time when we still had 100,000 troops over there, we had about 120 to 150,000 civilian contractors who were working at prices far higher than would have been paid, let's say, to the military doing the same jobs. TONY COX, host: Do you think - as we've talked about the draft - do you think that the country would accept a draft again? TED KOPPEL: Well, I think it would be political suicide to propose it. All I'm saying right now is - and since I'm not running for office, I can and even am inclined to propose it at least as a theoretical response to what I think is unacceptable. TED KOPPEL: What is unacceptable is a nation that goes to war without the engagement of its population, either the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, are in the U.S. national interest, in which case, A, we have to fight those wars, and, B, we, the population of the United States - the voters, the citizens - have to support that, not just support it with our votes, but support it with our monies, support it with sacrifice that we are prepared to make. TED KOPPEL: I was born and grew up in England during the Second World War - and you and I were talking about this earlier, Tony. At that time, we have severe rationing in England. Rationing is one way that you make materiel, different foods, available for the troops who need them. And the civilian population shares in the burden of supporting the troops. It's a tiny way of doing it, but we're not doing anything. TED KOPPEL: I mean, think of a single sacrifice that we, as citizens, who do not have children or relatives in Iraq and Afghanistan, what sacrifice are we making? My argument is: none. And it has to be something. TONY COX, host: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. TONY COX, host: Ted, we have a person who sent two comments in. And I'm going to read them to you and let you respond to them. This comes from Richard(ph) in New York. He says: First of all, we have sacrificed too much blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time to bring the troops home and close our military bases around the globe. And he follows that with this: We need to fix this country before we can consider trying to fix the world. TONY COX, host: That's his comment. TED KOPPEL: Well, Richard is trying to get me into the debate that I said I didn't want to get in to. The issue is not whether we should or should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan - we are there. But when he says we have sacrificed too much blood and treasure, was it? TONY COX, host: Yes, we. TED KOPPEL: We. We haven't sacrificed. I haven't sacrificed any blood. I haven't sacrificed any treasure. My taxes are the same now as they were before the war began. My taxes have not increased. I rather doubt that Richard's have. None of us is paying more in taxes today for a specific war tax than we were paying before. And when he says we are sacrificing blood, that's precisely my point -we aren't. The young men and women who are over there are, and by extension their families are. The rest of us are sacrificing nothing. TONY COX, host: Why is it, in your opinion - your considered opinion, Ted Koppel, that this hasn't become a major issue on Capitol Hill with regard to ballooning the deficit which the war clearly is doing? TED KOPPEL: Well, it is an awful lot of easier to borrow the money from the Chinese and defer the payment than it is, you know, I mean, imagine here we are coming into the political season again. We have elections coming up. How many congressmen out there do you think are going to come out and say, yeah, I was listening to Ted on NPR the other day. I think he has a terrific idea. I'm going to propose raising taxes so that we can underwrite the cost of these wars. TED KOPPEL: Almost by definition, that man or woman would be elected out of office. It is politically so unpopular to suggest any additional taxes. But that is a state of mind. And that's really, Tony, what I'm arguing right now, that the American state of mind these days is so self-indulgent, is so self-oriented, is so concerned about doing, you know, I'm all right, Jack, as the British used to say. Everything is okay with me. I'm not going to worry about what's happening to those kids over there. I'm not going to worry about where the money is coming from. Maybe my grandkids will pay for it. You know, where will I be by then? TONY COX, host: We have time for one last email before we have to say good-bye. Here it is. As a 26-year combat veteran, it is my experience that most Americans are not touched by this war or the sacrifices made by our men and women who are serving. I routinely run in to people who don't know anyone that serves or have served. If we brought back the draft, Congress, the Senate and many others would become more actively involved, if only to try to get deferrals for their sons. That's the point that you are making, wasn't it? TED KOPPEL: It is the point that I'm making. And while I realize that it may be politically unfeasible if not impossible to bring the draft back, I simply believe that we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the nation at large to consider where we are, where we're going. As the one caller suggested, we have hundreds of thousands of he called them mercenaries. He's not far wrong. Why should I, as a volunteer in the military do for $30,000 a year what some private company will pay me 75 or $100,000 a year to do? TED KOPPEL: In the long run, it's going to be bad for the military. In the long run, it's bad for the country. TONY COX, host: NPR senior news analyst Ted Koppel, joining us from his home in Potomac, Maryland. As always, Ted, it's wonderful to talk with you. TED KOPPEL: Thank you, Tony. Enjoyed it. TONY COX, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Tony Cox.

NPR senior news analyst Ted Koppel perceives a lack of shared sacrifice when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combined cost of the two wars on American taxpayers is close to a trillion dollars, and the human toll has been significant.

Leitender Nachrichtenanalyst bei NPR, Ted Koppel, sieht einen Mangel an gemeinsamen Opfern, wenn es um die Kriege im Irak und in Afghanistan geht. Die kombinierten Kosten der beiden Kriege für die amerikanischen Steuerzahler belaufen sich auf fast eine Billion Dollar, und der menschliche Tribut ist erheblich.

NPR高级新闻分析师泰德·科佩尔认为，伊拉克和阿富汗战争缺乏共同牺牲。这两场战争给美国纳税人造成的总成本接近一万亿美元，而且人员伤亡惨重。

ED GORDON, host: This is NEWS AND NOTES. I'm Ed Gordon. ED GORDON, host: On today's Roundtable, whites and minorities differing views on economic opportunity and a Houston Congressman calls some Katrina evacuees in his state deadbeats. ED GORDON, host: Joining us today to discuss these topics and more, Glenn Loury, professor economics at Brown University. He joins us from member station WRNI in Providence, Rhode Island. Michael Meyers, Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition joins us from our New York bureau. And via phone today, ER Shipp, professor of journalism at Hofstra University. I welcome you all. Greatly appreciate it. ED GORDON, host: Let's go right into the poll that Gallup released. It's its annual Minority Rights and Relations Poll. What it does show here, and underscores something that is no surprise to any, that there is, as so often was called during the O.J. Simpson trial, two views of America: one black, one white, or in this case, one colored, one white, if you will. ED GORDON, host: And it specifically talked about the inequality in terms of views, Glenn, in terms of how blacks and minorities saw economic opportunity in this country versus whites. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Yeah, that's right. Blacks and Latinos are less optimistic. They're more likely to see this as a country of haves and of have-nots than are whites. They are more likely to say that unemployment is among the major problems that the country is facing. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): And, like you say, this is not news. It's been true for a long time that blacks and other minorities have a different perspective on what's going on in the country. There's a lot of inequality. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Partly, this is a class point; that is, that there are more working class and lower class people amongst minorities than whites. But, partly, it's a perception of what constitutes discrimination. Many times, an affront or a disappointment in the workplace for a person of color, you can't help but think that it might have something to do with your race, and whites are not burdened with that particular problem. ED GORDON, host: And, Michael Meyers, you see that perhaps most in the idea that whites, according to this poll, clearly see job opportunities as equal among all in this country, where blacks and Hispanics - particularly blacks - do not. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Well, you might have seen what Glenn was talking about if the question had been differently put to whites. For example, if whites were asked, did they believe they are discriminated against in the workplace because of affirmative action, I think you would have seen higher numbers of people among whites who think that race discrimination is something that affects their lives as well. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Yes, this is a divide in group experience and perceptions about group experience and about racial progress. But the central point is what do you do about these perceptions? What do you do about these lingering facts? And, for me, the issue is very interesting that there was no mention in terms of reparations, referring to a prior program of yours. Nobody takes reparations seriously other than maybe the academics. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): For me, the issue is, how do you get people who are low income and who are not in the mainstream of American society into the mainstream? That means you have to get rid of ghettoization and isolation. You have to get minority people in place for their situation in life. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): They have to go to the best colleges - to the elite colleges. They got to get into the good schools, get into the so-called good neighborhoods; they got to go where the jobs are. You have to go and get into power communities where people have power, who have the jobs and who have influence or who can get you a job. It's a lot of who you know, as opposed to just what you know or what you don't know. ED GORDON, host: E.R., the poll looks at some other things in relation to how the world is viewed. We'll get to that in just a moment. But most interesting, if you look at the blacks that participated in this poll, the vast majority - 81 percent of them - dispute the notion of equal job opportunities. 81 percent. ED GORDON, host: Professor E.R. SHIPP (Professor of Journalism, Hofstra University): Yeah, I can see that. And what I think we're seeing is people are looking around themselves and seeing what's going on, and that may not be reflected in the world of the whites who were part of the poll. ED GORDON, host: But if you look around you and see that many of the people on your block are not working, then you think there is something going on. And maybe you will think that it has something to do with race, and maybe it does, as Michael was saying. It's probably more - and Glenn, I think, also - it may be more class related. ED GORDON, host: But it reminds me of a lot of other polls that have been done where blacks and whites have different views. And it basically comes down to what do you see happening around you and not so much what the big picture really relates. ED GORDON, host: We're being told constantly, by the way, that the economy is strong and there is little unemployment; but if you see a lot of people not working, then you wonder what's going on. ED GORDON, host: Yeah, we talk about class, Glenn Loury, but we have to remember when we talk about class in this country, while there are African-Americans who have been able to steadfastly put their feet in the middle of middle class and even a fewer who really are rich nowadays, the vast majority of African-Americans in this country really do fall into either poverty or the true working class and, therefore, these numbers speak to them. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Yeah, that's true. Something over a quarter - less than a third of blacks live in poverty - over a third of black children. The typical black family has about 60 percent of the annual income of the typical white family. These numbers haven't changed a whole lot. The poverty numbers have trended down over the 90s, but the difference in family incomes has been a fact of American life for over a generation. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): So, yeah, it's not surprising that African-Americans would be somewhat less optimistic. Amongst immigrants, though, there is a lot of dynamism and social mobility. The economy really is open. There is a lot of social mobility. The problem of ghettos and of lagging position of blacks - as Michael Meyers has said and I want to underscore it - is a legacy of our social history. It has a lot to do with isolation, segregation, and people not being able to get into the networks where they can develop their human possibilities. Prof. SHIPP: It's not surprising, by the way, that immigrants might feel a little bit more optimistic. That's the whole point of immigrating... Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Sure. Prof. SHIPP: ...is that you want to come to a place that's better than where you were. And what you're seeing is something that is, indeed, better than what you (unintelligible). Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But the other factor - it turns the black/white divide, at least for me, is the issue of the difference between not only income differences between the racial groups - and there are - but also the issue and the differences in terms of wealth. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): There has been - because of racial discrimination and segregation and the advantages of white skin and all that other history, there's been an overdeveloped white community in terms of wealth. And blacks, for the most part - particularly, low income blacks, and recently, middle class blacks - are just coming into the system and depending on a paycheck. They don't have assets and wealth to fall back on. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): So those are real perceptions and real problems. And it's very interesting, among all the groups in the poll, very few people cited affirmative action as a possible remedy. In light of this history, it seems to me, affirmative action -affirmative redress - affirmative action against that history of discrimination and pervasive segregation it seems to me should have been higher in terms of what people see in terms of possibilities in terms of remedy ED GORDON, host: Well, higher in terms of the rankings. The one subject that all agreed on is, when asked about the top problems in this country, the Iraq War across the boards - non Hispanic, whites, blacks and Hispanics all suggested that that was the number one problem the country faces. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Yes, because it is the number one problem that the country faces. It's an awful, terrible problem. Scores upon scores are dying every day over there in Baghdad. We're mired. I don't have to go on with the litany. We all know what the situation is. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): In my mind, it's a great relief that in this democracy, across the board, regardless of class or race, ordinary citizens recognize that we've got ourselves into a horrible mess over there. Now, if only we could get our government to do something about it. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Well, also, ordinary citizens see Iraq as a major distraction and diversion of limited resources... Prof. SHIPP: Well, one reason for… Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): ...and as well as the price of oil. So all of that and other stuff is tied up in the question of what's the most important issue facing (unintelligible). Prof. SHIPP: The one reason that we can see this unifying theme is that many of the men and women who are actually fighting the war represent people of lower and working classes, and a lot of people of color. ED GORDON, host: Yeah, and E.R., to underscore what you said earlier in terms of the most important problems the country faces, unemployment ranked second for African-Americans, while it did not appear among the top five listed by either whites or Hispanics. Prof. SHIPP: Mm-hmm. ED GORDON, host: All right. Let's move our attention to something interesting from U.S. Representative John Culberson, of Texas. He's a Houston Republican who has suggested that the deadbeat evacuees of New Orleans get out of his city. He says, this is a quote, "time has long since passed for the able bodied people from New Orleans to either find a job, return to somewhere in Louisiana, or become Houstonians." ED GORDON, host: And his suggestion is, you have to make an effort not to find a job in Houston. So while he is not indicting all of the evacuees, clearly he's suggesting that there are far too many who are on the doles and just taking an extended vacation, Glenn, in Houston. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Yeah, and I fear that he may be right. I don't have command of all the facts, but casual observation suggests that he could well be right. The rhetoric is inflammatory. I would not have put it that way. But when I looked and I saw that we were importing workers from Brazil and Mexico to clean up the trash on the streets of New Orleans, and when I considered the fact that people now, nearly a year after the event, some are still sitting, I thought, my God, you know, this really is not going to work. And, you know, so I mean - I don't want to come off sounding like a... ED GORDON, host: But, Glenn, (unintelligible) the wonder of America. I have the right to be a deadbeat in New Orleans or Houston, and you can't tell me where to be a deadbeat. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): No. No, no, no, you can't tell them. You can't tell them. They've got their rights. But you can engage in a... Prof. SHIPP: They don't have a right to be deadbeats! Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): ...you can engage in a moral rhetoric that calls them to higher ground. And, I mean, I think, you know, people ought to be encouraged to get up and get moving. I think that's the case. They should have support, they should have help, but they should get up and get moving. Prof. SHIPP: They've got all that already, and they are not taking advantage of it in these cases. I think the Congressman is correct, and sometimes you do have to use inflammatory language to get people's attention. You have to give them a kick in the pants. So I think there are some people lying around who should be doing something. They need to get over the fact that they are Katrina victims and that therefore they're special and don't have to do much to go beyond being a victim. Prof. SHIPP: They've got to move on. They've got to do something for themselves. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Well, there - this is Michael Meyers - there is something troublesome for me in terms of the imagery that is being painted in some of these articles and stories, in terms of people sitting around, loafing around, watching their TV sets and eating Cheetos, and whatever else they're doing in terms of loafing. What the Congressman did not say, which is interesting, I mean, he could have used that great colloquialism, you know, you don't have to go home, but you've got to get up out of here. He didn't say that. What he did say is that... ED GORDON, host: And that's the cleaned up version. Thank you, Michael. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): This is the NPR version. But he did say that what everybody acknowledges - and I'm not going to say that the Katrina evacuees don't acknowledge it because I don't know, but I think the problem is probably smaller than the rhetoric - but what he did say is that people have got to have a sense of a work ethic. Even the mayor of Houston, Mayor Bill White, said essentially the same thing. He said get a job or go home. He said that last Monday. ED GORDON, host: Yeah, but here's what's interesting, Michael. We just talked about the poll, and the idea of unemployment being second in terms of the problems that African-Americans feel are most paramount in this country. The article - one of the articles that we pulled up, talked about a white collar worker, Eunich Little(ph), 50 years old, with a masters degree, said he had not gotten one response from more than 50 Internet job postings ranging from human resource positions to administrative work. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Right. Right. ED GORDON, host: Blue collar people talk about going into places, filling out forms, not hearing back. So there are... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): That's what I was, that's what... ED GORDON, host: ...the questions that remain to the idea of the reality of, quote, again, "being African-American in this country." Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Ed, that's exactly what I was suggesting. That's where I was going. In the sense that, you know, there's also - they say that there are lots of jobs in Houston, but there may not be jobs available for people if the employer sees the people or the applicant as a temporary person. If the employer thinks the person is really, at some point, going home. And therefore, there is a sort of quote-unquote - I may not use that word in quotes - “discrimination or disfavoring” towards people who show up and try to get work. And so... Prof. SHIPP: Well, why would they have to be identified as Katrina victims? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): It's in your resume. Prof. SHIPP: Just apply for the job. And why is it an issue, whether they been (unintelligible)? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): It's in your resume. Where you live, and where you have lived in the last six months or a year, and what kind of jobs you had before that, every employer wants to know. Prof. SHIPP: Yes. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): So you have to identify that. You can't hide that. Prof. SHIPP: But they've been there for ten months or whatever it is now. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): That's not enough. ED GORDON, host: Well, but I mean, if you put your resume out, and you worked in New Orleans for the last ten years and your job history says that, you would hope that the employer could put two and two together and figure that you probably lived there. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Yeah, but, you know, I just want - I also want to say that, let's not get too harsh about it. Because, you know, the students who went to other places, you know, and they went to different colleges, including some of the elite colleges, they were so disappointed when the colleges said, okay, the emergency in New Orleans is over. You've got to go home. You've got to go back to the colleges in New Orleans, to which, admitted you. This was a temporary rescue. ED GORDON, host: Yeah, Glenn, this really does show that - sometimes we don't like to say this out loud - but Americans have the compassion to help others for only so long, and then we go back to, all right, get out. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Well, yeah, and... ED GORDON, host: Now, come on. Come on. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): What happened to those people in New Orleans is a terrible thing, okay? But, you know, life goes on. And I agree with E.R. that, you know, folks need to get moving. And, you know, help and compassion also has a dark side, and I'm not the one who usually makes this kind of an argument, you know? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Dark side? Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): The conservative social scientists make it. But people can become dependent. You can sap their initiative. Prof. SHIPP: Yes. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): A person can sit for six months a year, 18 months, and then they're a different person than they were at the start. That's not what we want. So it's entirely approbatory to encourage... Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But just, just, let's... Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): ...I mean, there are problems of discrimination out there, no doubt. But this thing that this Congressman is talking about is not a problem of white collar New Orleans residents not being able to find jobs. We know what he's talking about. ED GORDON, host: Right. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But let's also be... Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): That problem was there in New Orleans before the folks left. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): But let us be cautious and careful here, because I still say... Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Why? Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Because you don't know the facts, Glenn. You said there, there is the possibility that the rhetoric... Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Yeah. Fine. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): ...may be larger than the real numbers here. ED GORDON, host: All right. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): In terms of the people loafing. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Right. (Unintelligible). ED GORDON, host: Okay, we should follow it... Prof. SHIPP: But there's still all the people in this situation who need to be encouraged to move on. ED GORDON, host: All right. All right, let's end on that point of agreement. And we should note that because we spent so much time on the poll - we wanted to get to one other topic today which we'll move to hopefully tomorrow, and that is that prisoners in Houston - so maybe the thought of getting arrested to get a job, as this story goes, might have been the case - but prisoners in Houston were looking for minimum wage as relates to the work they were doing in prison. But that was knocked down by an appeals court. We'll talk about that tomorrow. Prof. SHIPP: Well, they're just out of their minds. I'll just say that. They don't - they're supposed to be punished. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): That's punishment, not a job. ED GORDON, host: Well that's - that indeed is what the court says. And we'll save that for tomorrow. Glenn, Michael, E.R., thanks so much. Greatly appreciate it. Prof. SHIPP: Thank you. Professor GLENN LOURY (Professor of Social Sciences and Economics, Brown University): Thank you, Ed. Mr. MICHAEL MEYERS (Executive Director, New York Civil Rights Coalition): Thank you. ED GORDON, host: Next up on NEWS AND NOTES, how much you weigh may be determined by where you live. We'll tell you why. And NPR's Farai Chideya tries a slam-dunk fitness routine guaranteed to burn calories and build muscle.

Wednesday's topics: A new Gallup poll shows blacks and whites have two very different views of America; a Houston congressman tells Hurricane Katrina evacuees to find work or leave town. Ed Gordon's guests are ER Shipp, journalism professor at the Hofstra School of Communication; Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition; and Glenn Loury, professor of social sciences and economics at Brown.

Themen vom Mittwoch: Eine neue Gallup-Umfrage zeigt, dass Schwarze und Weiße zwei sehr unterschiedliche Ansichten von Amerika haben; Ein Kongressabgeordneter aus Houston fordert die Evakuierten des Hurrikans Katrina auf, Arbeit zu finden oder die Stadt zu verlassen. Ed Gordons Gäste sind ER Shipp, Journalismusprofessor an der Hofstra School of Communication; Michael Meyers, Geschäftsführer der New Yorker Bürgerrechtskoalition; und Glenn Loury, Professor für Sozialwissenschaften und Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Brown University.

周三话题：一项新的盖洛普民意调查显示，黑人和白人对美国的看法截然不同；休斯敦一名国会议员告诉卡特里娜飓风撤离者，要么找工作，要么离开这小镇。艾德·戈登的嘉宾有：霍夫斯特拉传播学院新闻学教授ER西普；纽约民权联盟执行理事迈克尔·迈耶斯；布朗大学社会科学和经济学教授格伦·劳瑞 。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Early this morning, a U.S. district judge struck down major provisions of three executive orders that were intended to make it easier to fire federal workers and weaken the influence of their unions. President Trump signed the orders in May, saying they would save taxpayers around $100 million a year. Today, unions are celebrating the decision by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. One of those celebrating is David Borer, general counsel for the AFGE union, the American Federation of Government Employees. It's the largest federal worker union. And he is with us now. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Mr. Borer, thanks so much for joining us. DAVID BORER: Thank you for having me. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: As briefly as you can, because I understand you litigated this matter, can you just give us your chief objections to the Trump administration's orders? DAVID BORER: Well, the executive orders issued by the White House attempted to undermine federal unions in the same fashion as Wisconsin governor had tried to undermine state unions, and that is to restrict the rights of federal workers, to restrict the rights of their unions and to generally make it harder for unions to operate in the federal sector. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: One of the provisions of these executive orders would have limited the time that a worker who was deemed underperforming could have to repair his or her reputation, let's say. The administration says it needed that because it needs more flexibility to get rid of workers that it says are poorly performing. Now, a lot of people work for employers who can fire them at will. What would you say to the public who says, well, you know, why should civil servants get more protections than I have? DAVID BORER: Well, the point really is everybody deserves those same kind of protections. The provision you're talking about is performance improvement plans. The idea is a mature labor relations system shouldn't be about punishing employees. It should be about bringing them along, coaching them up, getting them to perform better and then, only as a last resort, punishing bad performers if they can't comply with the requirements of the job. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Overall, how would you assess this ruling in the context of the year that organized labor has had so far? As you pointed out, a number of state governments have moved aggressively to curtail public sector labor unions. In June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that many unions considered a major blow by ending mandatory union fees for government workers nationwide. And then you have this ruling in your favor. How do you assess this in the context of the overall trends? DAVID BORER: It's absolutely a major win for AFGE and all federal workers. The cases you talk about obviously have been setbacks for the labor movement. But we're stronger than ever. AFGE is growing, and we're going to continue to fight these things. This case shows what we can do when we all pull together. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's David Borer. He's the general counsel of AFGE, the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest of the dozen unions which was suing the administration over these executive orders. Mr. Borer, thanks so much for talking with us. DAVID BORER: Thank you.

A judge struck down major provisions of three executive orders that would have made it easier to fire federal employees. NPR's Michel Martin speaks to David Borer, General Counsel at American Federation of Government Employees.

Ein Richter hat wichtige Bestimmungen von drei Durchführungsverordnungen, die die Entlassung von Bundesbediensteten erleichtert hätten, aufgehoben. Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit David Borer, General Counsel der Amerikanischen Vereinigung der Regierungsangestellten.

一位法官否决了三项行政命令中的主要条款，这些条款本可以使解雇联邦雇员变得更容易。NPR新闻的米歇尔·马丁采访了美国政府雇员联合会总法律顾问大卫·伯勒。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: GoFundMe campaigns have become the modern-day version of passing the hat. But who would have thought that our 16th president would need a GoFundMe campaign. That's right. Abraham Lincoln - or rather, his Presidential Library Foundation has a GoFundMe campaign. And it's trying to raise more than $9 million to pay off the balance of a $23 million loan it took out more than a decade ago. AILSA CHANG, HOST: The money was used to buy some of Lincoln's personal artifacts from a private collector. And if the foundation can't raise the money, some of those personal items, including one of Lincoln's iconic stovepipe hats, might end up back on the auction block. Carla Knorowski is CEO of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation, and she joins us from member station WBEZ in Chicago. Welcome. CARLA KNOROWSKI: Thank you. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So give us a little bit of the backstory about this loan. How did a private collector end up with so many Lincoln artifacts? CARLA KNOROWSKI: Well, there are many collectors out there for Lincolniana, which are Lincoln artifacts. And she was one of them. She was collecting all her adult life. At this one point, she was ready to sell. And we learned that it was filled with a lot of personal effects of Abraham Lincoln. We took a strategic move to purchase the collection. And we had to seek financing to do so because we were less than 10 years old. And now we're hoping to conclude the campaign for the collection. AILSA CHANG, HOST: And what are some of the personal items that you guys were trying to buy in this collection? CARLA KNOROWSKI: Well, as you mentioned, his stovepipe hat - the gloves he carried with him the night of the assassination that actually now are sadly bloodstained. One of the items is the oldest item linked to Lincoln in existence. It's his cipher book, which is a book he put together when he was doing his long division. AILSA CHANG, HOST: (Laughter) Oh, my goodness. CARLA KNOROWSKI: Yes. And he's very neat, I have to say. AILSA CHANG, HOST: He had great penmanship. CARLA KNOROWSKI: Great penmanship - but he also writes on that page, Abraham Lincoln is my name. And with this pen, I write the same. I wrote it here in haste and speed and left it here for fools to read. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Quite the poet - as a young boy. CARLA KNOROWSKI: Exactly. And, you know, we learn throughout his life later on that he is very poetic. We also learned from that that his sense of humor developed at a very young age, and it carried through throughout his life as well. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Now the foundation has received some criticism for taking such a huge financial risk. Do you think that criticism is fair? CARLA KNOROWSKI: You know, I don't think it's fair in as much as - at the time, the museum and library had just been opened. People were building, even though it's state-run, a national institution to our nation's greatest president. My colleagues from the state of Illinois, who were the historians at the time who wanted to purchase the collection, and the foundation felt that we could raise the money. And no one could foresee that the economy would bottom out shortly after the purchase of the collection, which is what happened - where a lot of donors, who would have normally come in for a lot more generous giving, could not at that time. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So what's the latest on your fundraising effort? Where are you guys at now? CARLA KNOROWSKI: When the news kind of broke publicly on this in May, we were at 9.7. AILSA CHANG, HOST: You mean you still owe 9.7? CARLA KNOROWSKI: We owe 9.4. AILSA CHANG, HOST: You owe 9.4. CARLA KNOROWSKI: We moved the needle a little bit. And we are actively working with private philanthropists, the legislature in the state of Illinois and the governor's office to ensure that none of these objects leave the museum. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Carla Knorowski is CEO of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation. Thank you very much. CARLA KNOROWSKI: Thank you so much. It was really a pleasure.

The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation is passing the GoFundMe hat as it tries to pay down debt it took on acquiring some of the 16th president's personal artifacts. NPR's Ailsa Chang talks to the foundation's CEO Carla Knorowski.

Die Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation gibt den GoFundMe-Hut weiter, während sie versucht, die Schulden zu begleichen, die sie beim Erwerb einiger der persönlichen Artefakte des 16. Präsidenten aufgenommen hat. Ailsa Chang von NPR spricht mit der Vorstandsvorsitzenden der Stiftung Carla Knorowski.

亚伯拉罕·林肯总统图书馆基金会正试图偿还因收购这位第16任总统的一些个人文物所欠下的债务，因此也寻求“资助我”项目的支持。全国公共广播电台记者张艾莎采访了该基金会的首席执行官卡拉·克诺洛夫斯基。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya. I'm sitting in for Ed Gordon. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: On today's roundtable, the Supreme Court says no to military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees. A New Orleans judge makes an example of Katrina looters by handing down the maximum punishment. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joining us today to discuss these topics and more, Nat Irvin, professor of future studies at Wake Forest University, is in Winston-Salem at WFDD. And at station WGBH in Boston, Callie Crossley. She's a social cultural commentator on the television show, Beat the Press, in Boston. And Joe Davidson joins us from our Washington, D.C. headquarters. He's an editor at the Washington Post. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Welcome and let's jump right in. So there are three looters in New Orleans. They get 15 years in prison for stealing liquor. About 30 bottles of liquor, some beer, some wine - 15 years. By contrast, the punishment for manslaughter isn't much more than 20 years. Joe Davidson, what's going on here? Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Well I think there's an effort on the part of local officials in New Orleans and Louisiana, and around the country for that matter - and this happened in Kenner, not New Orleans, Louisiana - to show that they will definitely be tough on crime in the aftermath of Katrina, and that looting that occurred then will not be tolerated. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): I think, though, that to take - to sentence people to this kind of term in prison really demonstrates just how far apart, I think, some of the authorities can be in their sentencing plans, and some of the experts are in what is really good for criminal justice in the long run. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Many people point out that for first time offenders, and at least one of these persons, at least Mr. Pearson, had no criminal history. The woman who was arrested later, was hired by the store that she was convicted of looting. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): People in these kinds of situations, many experts say, that rather than sentencing them to long time, long-terms in jail, that they should have some more type of rehabilitative sentence. Maybe halfway houses, maybe they could have the form of home imprisonment with electronic monitoring. Things that would allow them to return to society in a productive way, rather than going to what often is a higher education for criminal behavior, and that's imprisonment, for a long term. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, you know, Callie, there's a saying, never tempt an honest man. How many people in the same situation might have taken advantage? I'm not saying it's right, but is this a situation where you have career criminals, or is it a situation of crime of opportunity? And should we even try to make a distinction in this case? Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): It definitely was a crime of opportunity. And I can understand to some degree why at that moment it might have seem like it the great thing to do. I'm guessing that this was early on before people realized how intense the situation was. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): And I have two emotional responses. I mean my first, at first blush, was to be just as angry as the judge and to say, you know, that's right, throw the book at them. People were out here without water for God sake and these are folks trying to, you know, loot a store for liquor. This is ridiculous. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): On the other hand, then I thought to myself about the global implications of this. Assuming all these people are African-American, and we're talking about, once again, in the justice system - seeming to have a disproportionate numbers of folks in jail as Joe has mentioned with sentences that are not appropriate for the crime. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): So yes it's a crime of opportunity, yes it's heinous as far as I'm concerned, given the circumstances, but I do think that instead of making a statement about how awful this crime was, this crime of opportunity, that in fact it goes the other way. Because you think, well wait a minute? What's that? Fifteen years? Come on. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Nat? Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Well I just think it's ridiculous. I mean basically what has happened is that the judge has sentenced - if this sentence should hold up - he's essentially sentenced him to life in prison. Because if you spend 15 years in prison in today's society, in which everything is changing so rapidly, you basically come out, you don't even recognize the world that you, you know - the world that you left and the world that you would come out in are completely different places. So it's ridiculous. That's the first thing. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): The second thing is, it doesn't make sense on a practical level. You know, of all the places - Louisiana, Kenner, New Orleans - they need people to help to clean up the place. The most common sense thing would be to say, anybody caught looting - instead of putting them in jail, put them to work. Let them have two years of wearing a sign that says I was caught looting during Katrina. But at least they will be doing something about the situation. They'll be, you know, involved in cleaning up the place. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): When you look at the challenges that the whole city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana is faced with, just from a practical standpoint, they really need people to do it. So now here's what the judge does. Instead, he puts people in jail. So what are they going to have to do? Now they're wards of the state. Somebody has to care for them. They should be caring for others. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): And, you know, the other thing is this: when you look at the sentence, being sentenced in life in prison for having stolen liquor - okay, that's one thing. But, you know, and they should suffer some kind of punishment. But it ought not be anywhere near… FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's 15 years, yeah. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Yeah, but I mean, it ought not be anywhere near what Ken Lay, Andy Fastow - people who have really looted - looting pensions, stealing from hundreds of thousands of people - that's what you ought to really be putting people in prison for. Stealing liquor six days after Katrina, that's ridiculous. They shouldn't have done it, of course. No question about that. But let's have some common sense here. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): You know there's also the factor that when people go to jail for a long period of time, it's just not those individuals that pay a cost, it's the taxpayers. You know, to keep somebody in jail costs, like, $20,000-30,000 a year. And a number of states around the country have begun moderating some of these long sentences, some of these mandatory sentences. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Not out of any - not because all these state legislators are suddenly joined the ACLU, it's because they have to pay the bill. They have to sometimes either raise taxes or cut back on other services in order to fund these huge populations in prison. So there's a cost to the individual taxpayer as well as to the individual who is incarcerated. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I want to move onto another topic that has to do with incarceration. This is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S., of course, holding what we call enemy combatants. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 ruling with our new chief justice abstaining, said that the administration cannot hold military tribunals for enemy combatants. Did rule on whether or not there should be a time limit on how long detainees could be held. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But this ruling comes right after three detainees committed suicide. Callie, what's the implication of this ruling? Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): The implication is that, hopefully, there is a point that the Supreme Court will take a look at where the Bush administration is pushing and say, enough already. However, I will note that in a lower court level, Judge Roberts did vote in favor of this. So it would've been 5-4 if he had not abstained. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): I mean, I think the larger implications, of course, are global. And how are we going to maintain and do what we say that we think should be happening around the world in terms of justice, in terms of democracy, in terms of fairness about prisoners and how they are held and treated. And then do this is Guantanamo. And then try to have the kinds of - to put in place systems that do not afford people the basics rights that we say are fundamentally American and that we would expect and hope would happen if our guys were held prisoner. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): You know, that's the implication. And, finally, the court has said, you know, no more. And it's about time for Congress and President Bush - if there is some reasonable way to come up with something that addresses his concerns about “putting murderers on the street,” then come up with something. But this was not appropriate and the court wisely said that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joe, you're at the Washington Post. How are your reporters covering this story. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Well there's a story in today's paper, which with Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz. And they - it's an analysis, which says that this is the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law, but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who has repeatedly - who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): And I think that this gets to the heart of it in many ways. I think that this -while this ruling dealt with a particular individual in a particular case, it definitely could have brought implications for the way in which President Bush has conducted his presidency, which some have called an imperial presidency. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): It could have implications, for example, for the CIA's network of secret prisons. But I say it could, not that it will. Because while many might view this as sweeping, and it might in fact turn out to be sweeping, I think it remains to be seen, just how the administration reacts to this in practical terms. Will it say, because of the Supreme Court ruling, the CIA's network of prisons will now be abolished? I kind of doubt it. And so it might be sweeping in a theoretical level, just how - what impact it's going to have on a practical level I think remains to be seen, particularly if Congress does what the administration will probably ask them to do, which will basically codify, I assume, what they've been doing already. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Nat, picking up off of... Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Well, you know, I think... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: ...let me just... Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Okay. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: ...sort of throw one thing in here. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. That's what people say. Now, does that hold true for people? You know, is the possession of these detainees by the U.S. government basically going to gum up the works in terms of any kinds of changes in how the U.S. government treats these people? But I didn't mean to interrupt you. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Well, no, I was just going to say that I think Joe makes a great point in - but one of the things that we - that I think that there's often missed in this discussion, and it's a very complicated ruling by the Supreme Court, is that we're talking about suspects here. That's the key thing. These are people who we believe may have committed terrorist acts against the United States or harbor the intention of doing it, but we don't know that. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): And the key thing, as Callie pointed out, is that we have to demonstrate to the world, to ourselves, that there is a fair process. The president has been operating as if he's the decider in chief. You know, he's the judge, he's the jury, he's the prosecutor. He comes up with these tribunals that the, you know, the Supreme Court said you can't do what you've just done. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): It doesn't even effect what the United States Congress said was a fundamental basic standard for both what military tribunals ought to be and then second, how we have signed on the Geneva Conventions, what those guidelines are. The -you know, basically the president was just operating as the, as I said earlier, as the imperial presidency, and it has gone so far to where even Republicans are saying, oh, wait a minute. Pull back a little bit here. And that's what I think the court is saying here. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): And I think, you know, when you look at our history, in times of war, we have a tendency to do some things that we later regret. And I won't recite all of them, but the most recent is having the, you know, having interned our own American citizens who happen to be of Japanese descent. We don't know what kinds of errors we are making right now by assuming that the president - or having had assumed until the Supreme Court said it - that the president can do basically just what he wants to do under the guise of the war on terror. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): I think the final thing I would say, too, it also illustrates how important the federal elections are becoming, the presidential elections are becoming when it comes to who appoints whom to the Supreme Court. This ruling will be viewed in some ways, maybe not in 2006, but certainly 2008, looking - probably sharpening their knives for who is it that you think will be appointed to the Supreme Court. So there's a lot here. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): But it also could be a very important - play an important role in the 2006 elections, because the Congressional elections are up this year for the entire House and a third of the Senate. And if the... Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Yeah, you're right about that. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): ...and if the administration goes to Congress and asks for permission to do what it wants to do, as it relates to this case, then that obviously could play a big role in the Congressional elections this fall. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: And those elections are sneaking up... Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): And let me just say this last thing... FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Okay. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): ...if I could, Farai. And that is that this ruling has given some strength to people who, around the country - around the world rather - who've been calling for the close down of Guantanamo - I can't even say it. And particularly President Bush's strongest ally, Tony Blair has been trying to back up and back up. I think this ruling gives more under-girding for folks who are - just do not believe that this is the way that the United States ought to be proceeding. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, we don't have too much time left, but I - there's one more topic that I think you guys can sink your teeth into. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Michael Steele, who is the Lt. Governor of my home state of Maryland, has raised some eyebrows because one of his campaign contributors, one on the host committee of his fundraiser, was the creator of the Willy Horton ads. We all remember those when Michael Dukakis was basically put into a context of letting murderers and rapists through a revolving door. Willy Horton was the central figure in that campaign. Of course, he was African-American. A lot of folks said, wow, this is just like some kind of, you know, Jim Crow-era advertising. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So, Callie, quickly, does this help Steele, because it firms up his reputation with white Republicans who may say, is he going to be too soft on race? Or does this hurt Steele because, in Maryland, it's considered that you have to win at least 25 percent of the black vote to win? Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): I think it does both, actually. I think it makes people, black folks, say, listen, I mean, as somebody has said, if you're going to have these people giving you money, they must be getting something back. And so I have to wonder about you. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): Usually what happens, in terms of the folks who eye with suspicion black republicans, it comes down to issues of race. And we're talking about people providing money to this campaign who have long histories of not being supportive of African-American interests around racial concerns. And so that makes folks suspicious, black folks suspicious. On the other hand, I imagine it gives aid and comfort to white people who think you're just going to get in there and turn into - turn out to be another Jesse Jackson. That's what I (unintelligible). FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Of course not all white people feel that way, but I should also point out that he's running for the U.S. Senate, which links directly back into this whole question of these elections. Go ahead. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): Well, my point is that, if you're trying to reach, you know, some of the white population that's a little bit suspect about you because of racial issues, I guess that this kind of thing might make those folks feel more comfortable. So I think it can play out both ways. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right, really quickly, Nat and then Joe. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Oh, I just think it'll be very interesting to see whether the Democrats, later on, if - depending on who's, you know, running against Steele - whether or not they're going to use the same hardened approach toward Mr. Steele in the fall campaigns. It'll be quite ironic. I think this is just basically race baiting. I think that it's the worst kind of approach. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Listen, if Mr. Steele - if you like what Mr. Steele stands for, vote for him. If you don't, don't vote for him. I mean, this is part of the difficulty of being a black Republican. I basically - I resent the whole idea that somebody has to - I mean, you know, Democrats - do you check everybody who supports every Democrat? Do you go check every last one of them to see whether they are pure and somehow, you know, supportive of everything that, quote, "black folks" would be supportive of? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So a double standard. Professor NAT IRVIN (Professor of Future Studies, Wake Forest University): This is hardball - yes, a double standard. It's hardball politics, and it's nasty. But I'll tell you, if you play it too hard - it'll be ironic to see if he runs campaign slogans and showing this particular candidate, Mr. Steele, use the same people that ran the Willy Horton campaign. Wouldn't that be ironic? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: All right. Joe, unfortunately, I don't have time to get to you, but hold that thought. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Okay, I'll do that. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Joe Davidson is an editor with The Washington Post. He joined us from NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C. Also, in Wake Forest, Nat Irvin, professor of future studies at Wake Forest University, WFDD. Callie Crossley, WBGH, Boston, social and cultural commentator on the television show, Beat the Press. Ms. CALLIE CROSSLEY (Social/Cultural Commentator, Beat the Press): Thanks. Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Have a good weekend. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Next on NEWS AND NOTES, most people think of Mexico when they think of immigration these days, but we'll meet a man who's written about his complex relationship with the U.S. and his native country, Vietnam. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You're listening to NEWS AND NOTES from NPR News.

Farai Chideya is joined by Nat Irvin, professor of future studies at Wake Forest University, Callie Crossley, social/cultural commentator on the TV show Beat the Press in Boston, and Joe Davidson, an editor at The Washington Post. Topics: a New Orleans judge sentences three Katrina looters to 15 years in prison; and the Supreme Court rules the president exceeded his power when he ordered war crimes trials for Guantanamo detainees without authorization from Congress.

Zu Farai Chideya gesellen sich Nat Irvin, der Professor für Zukunftsforschung an der Wake Forest University, Callie Crossley, die Sozial- und Kulturkommentatorin der TV-Show Beat the Press in Boston, und Joe Davidson, der Redakteur bei Der Washington Post. Themen: Ein Richter in New Orleans verurteilt drei Plünderer von Katrina zu 15 Jahren Gefängnis; und der Oberste Gerichtshof entscheidet, dass der Präsident seine Macht überschritt, als er ohne Genehmigung des Kongresses Kriegsverbrecherprozesse für Guantánamo-Häftlinge anordnete.

法拉伊·奇德亚与维克森林大学未来研究教授纳特·欧文、波士顿电视节目《击败新闻界》的社会/文化评论员凯莉·克罗斯利以及《华盛顿邮报》编辑乔·戴维森。主题：新奥尔良法官判处三名飓风“卡特里娜”席卷期间的抢劫者15年监禁；最高法院裁定，总统在未经国会授权的情况下下令对关塔那摩囚犯进行战争罪审判属于逾权行为。

ED GORDON, host: From NPR News, this is NEWS AND NOTES. I'm Ed Gordon. ED GORDON, host: A rash of violent, potentially hate-based, crimes has marked the beginning of summer. New Jersey authorities arrested a skinhead for threatening two Latino teenagers with a chainsaw. In Texas, two men beat and sodomized another Latino teen because they thought he tried to kiss a white girl. And a New Yorker was recently convicted of beating an African-American man with a baseball bat while yelling the n-word. These incidents share one thing in common, as do the majority of hate crimes: they were all perpetrated by young men. ED GORDON, host: In Los Angeles, the Museum of Tolerance uses multimedia to get young people to grapple with hate and bigotry and history and in their own lives. Robin Urevich visited the Museum with a group from a Compton middle school, where, last year, fights broke out between Latino and African-American students. ED GORDON, host: ROBIN UREVICH reporting: ED GORDON, host: This year, students at Whaley Middle School have been working on getting along. They sampled the food and learned the dances of African-American and Latino cultures. Now, they gather around museum guide Emily Hope(ph). She leads off the museum tour with a discussion of prejudice. Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): How about if you get a new kid in your class, do you judge that person before you know them? STUDENTS: Yes. Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): Right. We do this all the time. We judge people before we know anything about them, for a number of different reasons. Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): Good, you guys. Please follow me this way. UREVICH: Hope issues this challenge; will they walk through a green neon lighted door for those who aren't prejudice, or a red one for those who are? Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): A lot of people they want to walk through this door. We keep this door locked, the unprejudiced door, because, like we just talked about, we all have the potential to prejudge people before we know anything about them. Good, you guys. We're going to walk through the prejudice door. UREVICH: A few minutes later, the group turns to a series of images. The bloody face of a woman injured in the Oklahoma City bombing, the World Trade Center towers in flames, and a bearded dark skinned man wearing a turban. UREVICH: Unidentified Boy: That's Gosamo something, something. Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): You think it's Osama bin Laden? That is a perfect answer, because it's not Osama bin Laden. That man is the brother of a man who was murdered a few days after September 11. A man saw him and he assumed that he was associated with the terrorist attacks. Ms. EMILY HOPE (Tour Guide, Museum of Tolerance): Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. (Civil Rights Activist): We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. UREVICH: The group watches historic footage of the civil rights movement and sees World War II era Nazi propaganda aimed at Jews. UREVICH: Getting on the bus at the end of the tour, 12-year old Deandre(ph) found he learned a lot about recent history and how to apply it in his life. DEANDRE: I learned about how violent everybody can be, but one person could change, and like how our voices, if they are heard, can change the earth. UREVICH: Educating the average citizen is key in preventing hate and bigotry says UCLA psychology professor Ed Dunbar, who studies hate crime. He says programs like the museum tour are one way to get otherwise passive bystanders and schools and neighborhoods to speak up when they hear racial slurs or harassment. Professor ED DUNBAR (Professor of Psychology, UCLA): If you don't have any kind of sense of a groundswell of saying this is not what we want to have happen in our classroom, on our school campus, in our neighborhood, the vulnerability, the risk, simply rises. UREVICH: So far, Whaley Middle School's efforts seem to be paying off. This year ended with no racially motivated violence. UREVICH: For NPR News, I'm Robin Urevich, in Los Angeles.

Students from Fremont High School in South-Central Los Angeles recently toured the Museum of Tolerance — a facility founded by noted humanitarian, Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal — after several recent racially charged incidents on the campus.

Schüler der Fremont Oberschule im Süden von Los Angeles besichtigten kürzlich das Museum der Toleranz - eine Einrichtung, die von dem bekannten Menschenfreund, Holocaust-Überlebenden und Nazi-Jäger Simon Wiesenthal gegründet wurde - nachdem es in letzter Zeit einige rassistische Vorfälle in der Schule gegeben hatte.

位于洛杉矶中南部的弗里蒙特高中的学生最近参观了宽容博物馆。该博物馆由著名的人道主义者、大屠杀幸存者和纳粹猎手西蒙·维森塔尔创建。此前，该校校园里发生了几起种族主义事件。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Over the last several weeks we've talked a lot about the n-word. Nicholas Minucci, a white 20-year-old, used it while beating a black man in New York City. He was recently convicted of a hate crime. But essayist Steven Ivory says African-Americans, including himself, need to be careful about how they use the words, too. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Listeners, please note, his piece includes some sensitive language. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): It has to be the most controversial word in American history. Created to express extreme bitter hate, it is the bane of a people and the nagging thorn in the side of a nation. That word is nigger. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Unidentified Singer #1: (Unintelligible) Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Like many Black Americans, my relationship with this word is more mystifying than any episode of The Twilight Zone. I deplore the word when used by whites, yet I have used this word, as have millions of other Blacks, both as an expression of disdain and an affectionate camaraderie. As in, you my nigga, or nigga, I love you. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): I discovered the word when I was a child, along with basic, four letter words I knew I shouldn't use. And for almost as long as I've used the word, I've tried to come to grips with exactly why it seems okay for a black person to use it. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): So I went to streets of South Central Los Angeles to see if someone could tell me something I hadn't heard on the subject. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Unidentified Man # 1: I really don't think it's appropriate, like, when used, like, in general conversation. Like I wouldn't say anything to someone if they said it to me, but I'd be taken a little aback by it. I would be a little surprised. But when it's used in a medium, where it's like expressive as art, something like music when it isn't abused, I'm willing to accept it sometimes. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Interesting thing about this word. When discussing it, black people, like Mark Johnson(ph), a 24-year-old video store clerk, share a confusion as to how we really feel. Mr. MARK JOHNSON: Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I use it in my everyday life, but when I'm joking around with certain people, occasionally, I may use it. But, I mean, people are full spectrum, you know, like... Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Isn't that your everyday life, though? Mr. MARK JOHNSON: Well, yeah, it is my everyday life but, I mean, I wouldn't go so far as to say, like, I would use the word every day or, like, three times a week. It's nothing like that. But, I mean, like maybe once or twice I might say it, like, depending on who I'm joking with or where I'm at. You know, sometimes, you know, without thinking, you know, it might slip. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Hmm. Chris Higgins(ph), a 31-year-old father with his three children, offers the ultimate theory, the one so many blacks embrace. Initially, he sounds definitive in his thoughts. Mr. CHRIS HIGGINS: Black people are taking the word from white people and started to use it themselves, because they wanted to de-sensationalize it, like take the power from the white people who are putting you down, know what I mean? That's why today nobody else can use but us. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Consider one of the great ironic twists of modern culture. With whites not allowed to the word, it is black Americans who sensationalize it. Mr. CHRIS HIGGINS: Anybody else trying to use it, it's going to be immediately checked, you know what I mean? Or, you know, whatever the situation might call for. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Oh, and now my brother sounds even more conflicted. Mr. CHRIS HIGGINS: Personally, I would prefer that people didn't use it and I would prefer if I don't use it. I would teach my sons not to use it, you know, what I mean? But in the context that it's being used now, I don't really mind it myself, you know what I mean? But anybody else outside of black people, I wouldn't allow them to call me no nigger. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): That is something every black person I spoke to agreed on. No one who isn't black, they insisted, should ever be allowed to use this word. Ms. NAOMI LEWIS(ph): Absolutely not. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): 31-year-old Naomi Lewis, who says she only uses the word when singing along with hip-hop, bristled at the mere notion. Ms. NAOMI LEWIS(ph): Absolutely not. No. I think it holds a lot of deep feelings for people of the African-American culture. And I don't think it has, even if it's not meant to be derogatory, they have no place even putting it in their mouths. They shouldn't even want to, as far as I'm concerned. Why? Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): While I understood her point of view, I had to wonder, if we use the word affectionately, why can't white people use it as such? Wouldn't that be one real way to take the negative power from that word? Can the negative power be taken from a word created in hate? Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): And so it went. Person after person gave me variations on a theme of resentment, confusion and double talk. But there was this one guy. A 16-year-old kid, actually, named David(ph). DAVID: I'm from Ghana. I'm from Africa, west Africa. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): His words weren't so much wisdom as they were common sense. DAVID: I've been here, like - for like two years and I've seen like young people using the n-word. They don't care. I mean, somebody could be like 35, 30, whatever, and you could see a young person like 16 years old, like, what's up, my nigger? That's really messed up. I mean, wherever you go, people calling each other nigger, they don't care. DAVID: I mean, African-American, Mexican. Especially when you go to the hood. It's really messed up, yeah. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): However, David admitted that primarily through black American cultures, such as hip-hop and film, this word has found its way to the motherland, a place where it has no roots whatsoever. DAVID: Yeah. It's cause, you know, I mean, when I left people wasn't using it. But last time I called my friend, he was like, what's up, nigger? Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): In simple, fragile English, a young African boy, immune by birthright to a maddening dysfunction that belongs almost exclusively to the black American, gave me all the reason I need to stop using this word. No longer do I wish to sound as lost using this word as other black Americans sound when they attempt to rationalize its use. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): And to think, all this commotion about a racist word and black folk have been the only people ever to call me one. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Unidentified Singer #2: (Unintelligible) Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Old habits, especially those considered a form of self-hate, die hard. But the last time you hear this word out of my mouth will be the last time I will utter the word nigger. Mr. STEVEN IVORY (Essayist): Unidentified Singer #2: (Unintelligible) FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Steven Ivory is a writer and music critic living in Los Angeles.

Writer Steven Ivory offers a personal essay on his relationship with what he calls "the most controversial word in American history." Note: This segment contains language that some might find offensive.

Der Schriftsteller Steven Ivory bietet einen persönlichen Essay über seine Beziehung zu dem, was er \"das umstrittenste Wort der amerikanischen Geschichte\" nennt. Hinweis: Dieses Segment enthält Worte, die manche als anstößig empfinden.

作家史蒂文·艾佛利就他对“美国历史上最具争议的词”的看法发表了一篇个人文章。注意：此部分可能包含一些令人不适的语言。

JOE PALCA, host: Next up, your medical records. You have a legal right to get them. You can get copies of them from your doctor, and you can request changes to them if they're inaccurate. JOE PALCA, host: But if you request a copy of your medical records, there's one part many hospitals don't routinely include: the doctor's notes from your visit. You can get those notes, but it can be costly, take weeks, or may - you may even be required to review them in the presence of a doctor. JOE PALCA, host: Well, now, a new project is underway to get those notes into your hands more easily through a secure online portal. It's a one-year trial of something called Open Notes, with 115 primary care physicians and 25,000 patients participating in Boston, Seattle and rural Pennsylvania. But is this something that doctors and patients will find useful, and will it improve your health care? That's what we're going to talk about. Do you think it's something you'd want, or maybe not? Give us a call. The number is 800-989-8255. That's 800-989-T-A-L-K. JOE PALCA, host: And joining me now are two doctors involved in the Open Notes trial. Dr. Tom Delbanco is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He's also a researcher, teacher and practitioner at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He joins me in the New York studio. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Delbanco. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Good to be here. JOE PALCA, host: And also, Sara Fazio is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She's also a practitioner of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. She joins us by phone. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Fazio. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Thanks for having me. JOE PALCA, host: And before we get started, I'll just remind everybody that I'm Joe Palca, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. JOE PALCA, host: Okay. So, Dr. Delbanco, what's the purpose of these notes? How do they differ from what we think of as medical records? What are these notes? Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, a lot of people don't realize that after we see a patient or sometimes when we're seeing a patient, we write down our impressions. And they serve many purposes. One is, basically, to remind us what happened last time and who the patient is when we see him or her next, sometimes to communicate with other colleagues if they go to see a specialist. They justify the bills we send, to a degree. And they're reviewed by people who are worrying about the quality of care in the institution where we work. And they tell the patient's story. But the problem is that the patient usually hasn't been privy to that in the past, and that's what we're experimenting with. JOE PALCA, host: Well, Dr. Fazio, is this - I mean, is this also a routine part of your medical life? Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, it is. The study that Dr. Delbanco is speaking about is something that I reluctantly participated in because I think, as a number of practitioners, I was worried about what might happen if open access was given to patients. And I decided to participate in it because I think it's worth studying. And I actually think it's a valuable thing, but I still have concerns about how it might all fall out. JOE PALCA, host: Well, okay. So give us a flavor of the kind of concern that you have. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, I think the first concern that I have - and I suspect shared by many who either are participating in this who might even think about whether it came to their practice someday - is simply the concerns related to time. You know, primary care practice in America right now is not an easy thing. And we spend a lot of time doing extraneous work and paperwork and behind-the-scenes work. And I think the fear is - and I'm not sure that this will be borne out -the fear is will this create less time to do the things that we need for our patients, because we'll be responding to concerns or things that people want explained in their notes or in their medical records. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Thus far, I have to say, in the trial, this hasn't been borne out for me at all, which was actually very surprising to me. JOE PALCA, host: So, well, maybe, Dr. Delbanco, were you expecting patients to be hounding their doctors for explanations, or are you - were you less expecting that? Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, we had a few clues, because there have been small experiments along these lines in this country and actually in Europe. And the sense is, generally, what Sara just said, that I'm surprised it hasn't brought me to a grinding halt. And the question is why. My suspicion is that for every patient who, for good or for bad reasons, takes more of the doctor's time as a result of this, there's going to be another patient who takes less of the doctor's time. The questions that he or she may have had leaving the office, the things on their mind are answered by Sara's note, or my notes. And that's my guess of why Sara's surprised by how little perturbation there is in her daily life. JOE PALCA, host: Okay. Well, we're going to have to take a pause, but we'll continue this discussion. We're talking with a new program about letting patients have easier access to the notes that doctors take after a visit that they pay to the hospital. My guests are Dr. Tom Delbanco. He's a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Sara Fazio. She's an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. JOE PALCA, host: We'll be taking your calls - would you like to know? I mean, would you like to see what your doctor is saying about you and your medical records? Or would you prefer just to let the doctors take the calls and you'll do whatever they say, and that's fine with you? JOE PALCA, host: Well, it's a new world we're facing. And the Internet provides all sorts of new communications tools, and it's going to be up for people to decide. So this is a program that will give you a taste of what that future is going to be like. So stick with us, and we'll take your calls, and we'll take this short break. JOE PALCA, host: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. JOE PALCA, host: From NPR, this is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Joe Palca. JOE PALCA, host: We're talking this hour about the Open Notes project, a project that gets patients easier access to the doctor's notes on their medical records. And my guests are Dr. Tom Delbanco. He's a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He's also a researcher, teacher and practitioner at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. And Sara Fazio is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She's a practitioner of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. JOE PALCA, host: So, Dr. Delbanco, you were saying there's an interesting story on how you got into this project. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, about 30 years ago, I was seeing a patient about whom I was pretty worried. He was having trouble with his kids, losing his temper. He was having trouble at work. Sex wasn't working so well. He was fighting with his wife. And he told me he drank a couple of beers. And I was sitting there wondering whether he was in trouble with alcohol or not. And he was a printer by trade. And as I was writing down my notes, and beginning to take notes about our conversation, which we did in those days, I realized that he could read everything I was writing because he was a printer. And I said, can you read what I'm writing? He said, absolutely. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): And I said, well, I'm - I have a dilemma. I'm trying to decide whether I should write down alcohol abuse. And if you don't think that's a problem, there's no point in my writing it down. But if you think there is, let me write it down. And he kind of - was quiet for a minute and said you better write it down. And he got a lot better after that. We really addressed it. He stopped drinking, and he had a very different life. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): And a light kind of went off in my head and said this is shared decision-making. This is - he and I decided on something. And the record that I'm writing is the hub of that wheel, and that really got me started, actually, 30 years ago on this. JOE PALCA, host: Mm-hmm. And Dr. Fazio, when you hear that, does that strike you as, you know, the upside of this process, or is that something that also gives you concern that a patient would see something in his record that maybe he didn't expect to see? Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Yeah. I think it depends a lot on the patient, and you certainly can have those instances that Tom describes, where it's a positive thing. But you could also imagine the opposite effect, where you had a discussion with a patient about their alcohol use. It didn't - it wasn't an easy discussion. The patient maybe is not quite at the point yet where they see that as a problem, but you know it is and you know their medical and physiologic implications of that problem. You write it in the note, and they might come back and say, how could you have written this about me? I'm not an alcoholic. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): And I - you know, I think that what we write down, in fact, is often open to interpretation on both sides. And I don't mean that either side is right or either site is wrong, but that potentially could be a complicating factor in terms of just creating a misunderstanding or creating tension in a doctor-patient relationship. What you really want to have there is trust. JOE PALCA, host: Yeah. Well, okay. Let's see what some of our callers think about this. First, let's go to Catherine(ph) in Sunnyvale, California. Catherine, you're on the air with SCIENCE FRIDAY. CATHERINE (Caller): Thank you. I definitely like to have access to my records. And some of my doctors allow that, and some don't. One, in particular, a psychiatrist who will show me medical information but not session notes, and I'm wondering about that. And secondly, with regard to what your guest just said, if there - if you can't show your notes to a patient, then why would the patient have trust? JOE PALCA, host: Hmm. Two interesting points. Well, first of all, let me go to Dr. Delbanco and maybe you can explain about the psychiatry part of this. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Yeah, it's interesting. One of the first issues that comes up is what about mental health notes. And actually, by federal law, a psychiatrist can withhold his or her notes from a patient if he thinks it would harm them. When I talked to psychiatrists about this project, they thought, in general, that was a fine idea. And I'll tell you an interesting story, very quickly. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Right after an article was written about this, I got a call from a psychotherapist who said, let me tell you. I write my notes. And one day, for some reason, I was reading them out loud and the patient arrived without my seeing it and said, hey, that's interesting, keep on reading, please. And I did that, and since that time, I have read all my notes from the last visit to all my patients. JOE PALCA, host: Hmm. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): I said, terrific. Can I quote you? She said, no. My colleagues will think I'm nuts. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): So it's complicated, but my own view of the world is that if it's a mental health issue or a physical issue, you're the person involved. It's your head and your body, and you should know about what I'm thinking, and we should work it out together. JOE PALCA, host: But what about - let me go to Dr. Fazio and say, Catherine's other point about this: Trust. It sounds like, you know, one patient's trust is another patient's TMI, too much information. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Right. JOE PALCA, host: I guess you have to do it individually. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Right. You know, I think that's probably true, and you know your patients, to a certain extent. I think Catherine's point is actually a very valid one. And I it's part of the reason that I'm participating in this project, because I do feel comfortable with comfortable sharing this information. I think that there are some patients where you might have those reservations, and there might be some friction. But in all likelihood, most of those discussions have happened, or hopefully, they've happened in the room. But I can't imagine there being an extreme, where it might not be as smooth as Tom's example described. JOE PALCA, host: And it sounds to me, Catherine, that one of the things you might consider is finding a doctor who thinks more along the line as you do, because there might be someone who's more comfortable with sharing notes and establishing that kind of a relationship. I know that's easy to say and sometimes harder to accomplish, but that's a possibility. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Catherine, you picked up one of the central questions: trust. And we're - in this study, we're asking both patients and doctors beforehand what they expect to have happened. And then Sara will be completing data and we'll be studying her a year later, saying this is what actually happened. And one of our central questions is what will have happened to trust? Will you trust, on average, your doctor more after you read the note, or less? JOE PALCA, host: All right, Catherine, thanks. You kicked off a good discussion. CATHERINE (Caller): Thank you. May I ask one more question, quickly? Where will this be published? JOE PALCA, host: All right. That's a fine question. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): When you ask a researcher that, they always say, I don't know, and I hope it'll be on a terrific journal. But we published our most recent paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and you can find that on their website. CATHERINE (Caller): Thank you. JOE PALCA, host: So that will give you a hint. All right. Catherine, thank you so much for the call. Let's take another call now from Jill in Kansas City, Missouri. Let's thank you. Jill, you're on the air. JILL (Caller): Yes. Thank you for taking my call, Joe. In Missouri, we are allowed to have access to our records, and I had asked I had called my surgeon recently to start that process, and I haven't had much luck yet. I had a hip replacement four years ago, and the prosthesis they used was too big. Consequently, I've got one leg longer from the other, and it's caused all sorts of problems. So now the other hip is going, and I - realizing that, I had asked my doctor what size prosthetics he had used. And he shuffled through his notes and said, I don't seem to have that information here. JILL (Caller): Obviously, I'm going to need that information. Do you think I'm going to have more success asking him to send his records to another surgeon? Obviously, I wouldn't have my first one again or to me? I have to pay quite a lot of money for these records, too. JOE PALCA, host: Yeah. All right. Well, Dr. Delbanco, what... Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, that's a generic story. And it's amazing how many people have talked to us since we began this about how hard a time they're having getting their records, as you exemplify. You can do it in a sneaky way, which really what you're implying, by getting it from the next person, or you can do it directly and say to surgeon, you know, this is my hip and it's my leg. And I would like you to send this to me, please, and don't let me make it difficult for you. This gets to the litigious society, doesn't it, and the whole question of lawyers and malpractice and things like. And one of the questions that we're asking and one of the questions we raise is whether this kind of transparency or openness will actually work in favor of trust and less litigation and less hiding and less secrecy, or will it go the other way. JOE PALCA, host: Jill, thanks very much for that question. JILL (Caller): Thanks for your thoughts(ph). JOE PALCA, host: Let me ask you this. We've just been talking I mean, I'm suspecting that the people who've been calling have had some resources at their disposal to take these kinds of steps. Is this going to be another example of medical care for the rich who can afford Internet access, and - or is there some other way that this is going to be more universally available? Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Well, one of the most exciting parts of our study, from my point of view, is that we're working not only with Beth Israel Deaconess and the Geisinger Health Center in rural Pennsylvania, which serves actually many rich and many non-rich, but we're also working with Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, which is the county hospital of Seattle and caters primarily to those who are economically disadvantaged. And, in fact, 50 percent of the patients in the project there do not own computers. They will be going to the magnificent library in the middle of Seattle or to branch libraries, or they're setting up rooms at the hospitals where they can use computers. Everyone in Seattle seems to know how to use a computer, that's for sure, for kind of obvious reasons. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): But one of the things we'll study is how is it different for those who are wealthy and those who aren't? We're getting data on that. We'll have, you know, many, many thousands of patients, so we'll be able to look at a lot of groups in-depth. And my own guess is that this will not be a yuppie thing. It's the last thing I would want to do, I must tell you. It's not my roots. And I think this will be of at least as much importance to those who are not so privileged as to those who walk around with a lot of money in their pockets. JOE PALCA, host: Okay. Let's try one more call and go to Linda in Rochester, New York. Linda, welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. LINDA (Caller): Hi, thanks. I think this is a great subject. I've actually been doing this myself for several years now. In fact, when I go to choose a doctor, I won't pick a doctor unless they allow me access to that information. I mean, I can give you three quick examples why it's really important. First of all, I have caught mistakes in the medical records. And if you do not get those mistakes corrected, they go from doctor to doctor, and you could be treated improperly based on those errors. So it could literally affect the treatment that you get when you go to a hospital or a doctor, if all the records aren't correct. LINDA (Caller): Second of all, I had to apply for Social Security disability, and the government wants that information when you're applying for these crucial benefits for you to have. You kind of have to get that information. LINDA (Caller): And thirdly, I'll give you an example. Just this week - my dad is a veteran, and he wanted to get a prescription for a medication. And the doctor had tried all these other medications, which didn't work. And the only way now he can get approved for that current medication he needs to take is if he provides the VA with these office notes to prove that that medication will be effective in his case. So, right there, there's three reasons why this is so important for people to be able to have access to this. And I think it's a great thing you're doing. JOE PALCA, host: All right. Well, there's definitely one vote for, I think we can call that. LINDA (Caller): Yes. JOE PALCA, host: Thanks. LINDA (Caller): Absolutely. JOE PALCA, host: Thanks very much, Linda. JOE PALCA, host: Let me ask you, Dr. Fazio, you know, you were talking earlier about the potential for misunderstanding and the need for clarification. Do you think that it would be possible to create a glossary of terms or a look-up library or something like that that would make it easier for patients to sort of grapple with this information if it was - you know, if it became available to them more easily? Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): I do. And I actually think that that would be a step in the right direction. I mean, I really am an advocate for patients having access to their information. And I think it's - the way that we're going in the future, and particularly with the age of the Internet, really is in that direction, and it ought to be. But I think making sure that there aren't misunderstandings on the part of the patient or the doctor is a really important thing, and having the access to that sort of medical jargon and how do I interpret this word and what that means. Because a big part of the medical record for physicians and nurse practitioners is really communicating with other medical providers, and also, you know, for me and most of us, communicating with ourselves. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): So, in three months, if I'm seeing a patient back, I want to remember everything I was thinking that day. And so I might put something on the differential diagnosis that is really very scary, but that I truly think there's less than a .5 percent likelihood of - say, a cancer. And perhaps I didn't say that because it was so remote, but I want to remember my thinking. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): So I think there's that component that gets a little bit tricky. And it's not being paternalistic. And I have to say, 99 out of 100 times, I probably have had that conversation with a patient, but there are few patients with whom you wouldn't necessarily want to, because you've had such a long relationship with them that you know that that might actually be more damaging than the reverse. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): But I think, to answer your question, having a glossary of terms, having a way that you can communicate and help the patient understand their record is really the right thing to do. JOE PALCA, host: Okay. We're talking about a new project to give patients easier access to the notes doctors take on them. JOE PALCA, host: I'm Joe Palca, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. JOE PALCA, host: So, Dr. Delbanco - patients' access. What about insurance companies? How - I mean, I presume they can see this material pretty much ad lib, or no? And have they had any reaction to this project? Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): We haven't heard from them. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): And you're asking a tough question. And there are a lot of us here feel they have no business looking at the personal lives of the people they insure. On the other hand, they can come back with all kinds of arguments about why should we pay the bills if we don't know what's going on? And it's not something we're moving into quickly. I - my own view of the - all the people who look at the notes, they should be way down on the list. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): Let me just say where I think this might go, following up on Sara's point about electronics and the Internet and the future. As far as translating words, there will be a day soon where you can put a cursor on a word you don't understand and it will pop up right there with a translation. There are already programs written like that. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): My own fantasy about where this is going is that the notes will be jointly generated, that patients, in the long run, will - even in the short run, will write part of them, will put in their own input, will take histories on computers that detail what's on their minds, say what's on their minds, enter them into a record. The doctor will put what he or she thinks. And, in a sense, they'll agree on what's in there, and then jointly sign that as, really, a contract between the two of them to say this is what we're doing. The doctor will do this in the next year, the patient will do that. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): It's not just fantasy. It's really what we call shared decision making. The doctor has a body of knowledge that's unique unto him or her. The patient knows more about himself than anyone else - or herself. And our job is to get the two stories together and make it work for that patient. And that's where I think this is going, and I think the hub of the wheel is the record, what we write, what we think, what everyone writes and thinks, and we need to get that all together. JOE PALCA, host: Well, Dr. Fazio, just before we leave, and we only have a few seconds, I want to ask you: Does a future like that appeal to you, or scare you? Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): I think a little bit of both. I think, in general, it appeals to me. And I thought - I think that, you know, the concern among some physicians is the notion of time and having so little of it and just wanting to protect that so that we can do the job that we're here to do, which is really to take care of the patients and protect the time. I think that's the heartbeat. JOE PALCA, host: All right. Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there, but I can tell from the phones this is a conversation that everybody would like to take part in, so maybe we can figure out another way to continue this. JOE PALCA, host: Anyway, Dr. Delbanco, thank you very much. Dr. TOM DELBANCO (Professor, Harvard Medical School): My pleasure. JOE PALCA, host: He's a - Dr. Delbanco is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He's also a researcher, teacher and practitioner at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. JOE PALCA, host: And Dr. Fazio, thank you. Dr. SARA FAZIO (Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School): Thank you very much. JOE PALCA, host: She's an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and she's also a practitioner of general internal medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

The Open Notes project connects some 25,000 patients with their doctors' medical notes through secure online portals. Participating doctors Tom Delbanco and Sara Fazio of Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center discuss the program, and why it has some doctors worried.

Das Projekt Open Notes verbindet rund 25 000 Patienten über sichere Online-Portale mit den medizinischen Aufzeichnungen ihrer Ärzte. Die teilnehmenden Ärzte Tom Delbanco und Sara Fazio vom Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston sprechen über das Programm und darüber, warum es einigen Ärzten Sorgen bereitet.

Open Notes项目通过安全的在线门户将大约25000名患者与他们的医生的医疗记录连接起来。波士顿贝斯以色列女执事医疗中心的参与医生汤姆德尔班科和萨拉法齐奥讨论了这个项目，以及为什么有些医生担心这个项目。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Rachel Martin. In Massachusetts, nearly 36,000 runners are preparing for tomorrow's Boston Marathon. This year's race is a tribute to the three people who died in the bombing that happened shortly before 3 p.m. last year near the finish line. At least 260 other people were injured in the attack. Tomorrow, Boston city streets will again be lined with hundreds of thousands of spectators there to cheer on the runners, intent on reclaiming this year's race as a symbol of the city's resilience. And yes, security at the marathon will be tighter than ever. NPR's Jeff Brady reports. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Last year, Phil Dervin (ph) of Stratham, N.H. was almost finished running the 26.2-mile course when police stopped the race. At first, he was annoyed, but then learned about the attack near the finish line and that people were injured. As runners piled up behind him, one question came to mind. PHIL DERVIN: You know, what's going to happen now? I mean, there's thousands and thousands of people congregating. In fact, I remember looking around thinking, well, there could be a bomb here. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Dervin says he grew up in England were there were attacks like this because of the dispute over Northern Ireland. The security changes in Boston this year are familiar to him or anyone who remembers the September 11 attacks. More officers, more cameras and more restrictions on what you can bring to a public place. Dervin says those precautions are necessary now, but he never considered staying home this year. PHIL DERVIN: Not for one second did it stop me from, you know, wanting to run this year - the events of last year, not for one second. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Authorities spent months developing a new security plan. And they believe that tomorrow, the entire marathon route and the finish line near Copley Square will be safe. Boston Police Commissioner William Evans was among those reinforcing that message this past week. COMMISIONER WILLIAM EVANS: No one should be afraid to come to Copley Square, and nobody should be afraid to run the 118th Boston Marathon. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: The Boston Athletic Association organizes the marathon. And this year, the group says there are nearly 36,000 runners, 9,000 more than last year. The group predicts there will be a million spectators, twice the usual number. A temporary structure that marks the finish line bridges Boylston Street. It's covered in blue, and all week, people have been stopping by to admire it and pull out their phones. DENA GIGGY: I was just going to take some pictures of the finish line, just probably send it to some of my family that won't be around here. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Dena Giggy (ph) lives in nearby Cambridge. And she says the extra security is comforting. Asked if she'll be here tomorrow, Giggy says she's not sure yet, but not because of any potential danger. DENA GIGGY: It's kind of weather dependent. I'd like to come by, though, and, you know, pay my respects and also enjoy the yearly tradition of being over at the finish line. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: So far, the weather forecast looks good - a mostly sunny sky and temperatures in the 60's. Since Friday, runners like Mary Shien of Lenox Dale, Mass. have been showing up at a nearby convention center to pick up a clear plastic bag. MARY SHIEN: Well, it's our race bag. It has our number, it has our T-shirt, it has some free goodies. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: This will be Shien's first marathon. She says she was inspired to run by people who were injured last year and then shared their recovery stories. MARY SHIEN: They've overcome everything they have in past year, and it's the least I can do is go out and attempt to run 26.2 miles 'cause they've persevered. And they've accomplished a lot more than I will. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Nearby, Jerry Hester (ph) of Conway, Ark. says this is his third Boston Marathon. Though, he missed last year, he says, once a person runs in this race, it means something to them. JERRY HESTER: Anytime it's threatened like it was, I think it just brings a very strong bond among runners. And they want to show that they're not going to be intimidated by something like what happened last year. JEFF BRADY, BYLINE: Today, Hester will prepare for the big race tomorrow. He says the plan is rest, lots of pasta and plenty of water. Jeff Brady, NPR News, Boston.

Monday is the 2014 Boston Marathon. Security will be tight, and this year's race will be an emotional event that will be about more than who wins.

Am Montag findet der Boston-Marathon 2014 statt. Die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen werden streng sein, und das diesjährige Rennen wird ein emotionales Ereignis sein, bei dem es um mehr geht als um den Sieger.

周一是2014 年波士顿马拉松赛日。安保措施会很严密，今年的比赛将是一场激动人心的盛会，其意义超越了输赢胜负。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Barcelona football club is best known for making headlines on the soccer field. They've won the European Cup four times. But this season, the club has been getting more attention for its off-the-field activities. The global governing body for soccer - FIFA - has accused the team of signing players under the age of 18, which is a violation of FIFA rules. As a result, Barcelona has been banned from making any player trades for an entire year. For more on this, I'm joined from Spain by football reporter Ashish Sharma. Thanks so much for being with us. ASHISH SHARMA: Thank you very much. Thanks for inviting me. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So can you explain the details behind this ban FIFA has put on Barcelona? Exactly what did the club do? ASHISH SHARMA: Well, Rachel, as you say quite elegantly in your introduction there, they accused Barcelona, I should say, of having violated their rules. And they claim that the club has signed 10 players under the age of 18 between the years of 2009 and 2013, and describes this as a serious breach of their regulations. And FIFA has a very strong policy on the employment of underage players. They state, for example, that if a club is going to sign a player between the age of, say, 16 or 18 - if they are coming from a country far away, it needs to be that the parents have moved to that country for non-footballing reasons. ASHISH SHARMA: So perhaps as economic migrants and then the player developed his skills and is picked up by a club. And aside from this one-year ban, which will be for two transfer windows - which means they won't be able to buy or sell players this summer and the following winter - they've also been given a fine of about half a million dollars for their violation. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You said that these kids are between the ages of 16 and 18. Are any of them younger than that? ASHISH SHARMA: Well, that's been pretty much stopped, really, because now, you do have 18 as being the age under which players can't be bought or sold. This wasn't the case in the past. The most famous example, actually, is Barcelona with Leo Messi. He was 11 years old when his family were invited by Barcelona to come and move to Barcelona. ASHISH SHARMA: But really, the rules have changed; and one of the reasons for this has been the fact that we have over the years seen an excess of young players from continents like Africa or South America, who have been sent over or brought over by clubs to take trials that haven't worked out for them. And the players just don't have the money to be able to go back to their countries. So no, it really doesn't work beyond that age anymore. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So Barcelona has been banned from making player trades for a year. How have they responded? I mean, is this a big deal? ASHISH SHARMA: Yes. It's a big deal because of course, what it means for the club, basically, is that they will now have a huge restriction in being able to build as a club. And in Barcelona's case, they have a very critical situation because at the end of this season, they're going to lose one of the most experienced players - the goalkeeper; and their most experienced player, the defender and captain - Carles Puyol. And, as you know, in any sport - a team sport, certainly - when you lose players of that quality and that experience, you need to reinforce, you need to bring in players with equal amount of experience. ASHISH SHARMA: And a club like Barcelona, who is competing at the highest level, it always needs to recruit; and it always needs to enhance and better its squad. So if you deny them that opportunity, you really are giving them a big body blow. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is this really going to happen? Is it a done deal or will Barcelona find a way out? ASHISH SHARMA: Well, it's a very interesting scenario that develops now because the next process will be that Barcelona can appeal. It has within 90 days to make an appeal to FIFA's own appeals committee. If that appeal doesn't work, then the next stage for them is to take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. And there is precedent here that will actually support Barcelona because I think it was in 2009 the English football club Chelsea also faced a similar band because they recruited a player that was 17 years old, from France. And they took their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and they were successful and it was overturned, and they were allowed to carry on in their transfer policy. So all very interesting, and something to look forward to seeing how it resolves itself. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Ashish Sharma, he covers football - aka soccer - in Spain. Thanks so much for talking with us, Ashish. ASHISH SHARMA: Thank you very much.

The Barcelona soccer club has been banned from trading for 14 months for signing overseas players under 18 years old, against FIFA rules. NPR's Rachel Martin speaks with soccer reporter Ashish Sharma.

Dem FC Barcelona wurde der Handel mit Spielern aus dem Ausland unter 18 Jahren gegen die FIFA-Regeln für 14 Monate untersagt. Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem Fußballreporter Ashish Sharma.

巴塞罗那足球俱乐部违反国际足联规定，在14个月内禁止交易18岁以下的海外球员。NPR的瑞秋·马丁与足球记者阿什什·夏尔马交谈。

LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: We're going to turn now to another religious community in the United States. Kat Chow of NPR's Code Switch team reports on a camp that draws a hundred kids from all across the country who are part of the Sikh religion. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: In a Maryland suburb not far from D.C., the Guru Harkrishan Institute of Sikh Studies is in this wooded park studded with cabins. Some campers are crowded into a room playing traditional Sikh instruments. UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: (Singing in foreign language). KAT CHOW, BYLINE: And over in the camp's mass hall, some of the younger campers are getting ready to play "Jeopardy" - Sikh "Jeopardy." LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: Put your fingers on your buzzer like this, so that (unintelligible). KAT CHOW, BYLINE: That voice telling the campers to test their "Jeopardy" buzzers - that's the camp director, Gurdeep Singh, or Gurdeep Uncle, as the kids call him. He started the camp 23 years ago to help young people learn more about the Sikh religion. The religion itself was founded by Guru Nanak. It comes from the Punjab region of South Asia. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: These days, there are more than 25 million people in the world who practice this monotheistic religion, making it the fifth-largest religion in the world. In the U.S., there are about 500,000 people who follow it. And one of the ways Singh tries to teach the kids about facts like this is through a game. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: G. SINGH: Who is the spiritual mother of all Sikhs? UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Mata Sahib Kaur. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: G. SINGH: Mata Sahib Kaur is correct. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: Singh wants camp to be a comfortable environment that's not so prescriptive, where kids are allowed to question their faith. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: G. SINGH: They ask a lot of questions. They want to know facts. They want to be convinced. They cannot blindly follow anything. And when they come to these camps, those questions are answered. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: The campers aren't just asking questions about their religion. They're asking what it's like to live in America practicing it. One big topic that comes up here is bullying. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: According to the Sikh Coalition, more than half of Sikh kids are bullied in school. In 2012 and 2013, the nonprofit surveyed hundreds of Sikh kids in four states. It also found that 67 percent of Sikh kids who wore turbans reported being bullied in school. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: Rucha Kaur is the community development director at the Sikh Coalition, and she was asked to run some trainings at the camp. In one of those trainings, Kaur asks the kids to close their eyes. RUCHA KAUR: Tell me how many of you have been bullied in school. Raise your hands. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: A dozen or so kids ages 6 and a little older sit in front of a fan. A few raised their hands. Some tried to peek around to sneak a glance at their friends. Kaur knows from personal experience that if you're Sikh, there's a good chance you've been bullied. And for Kaur, one of the ways to fight bullying comes from the Sikh religion itself. RUCHA KAUR: You're a Sikh. What are we taught as Sikhs? Are we taught to be kind? UNIDENTIFIED CHILDREN: Yes. RUCHA KAUR: Are we taught to stand up for people who can't help themselves? UNIDENTIFIED CHILDREN: Yes. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: Bhagat Singh has been going to this camp for six or so years. Now, he's 13. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: If anyone calls you, like, Aladdin Bin Laden or something - something racist - you have to ignore it and move on. All these small things will happen to you. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: Singh says he thinks every single one of the kids at camp has been bullied. But camps like this can help them work through these issues together. His little brother also goes to this camp. And their mom, when she was a teenager, she went, too. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: B. SINGH: We're special. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: That's kind of cool, right? KAT CHOW, BYLINE: B. SINGH: Yeah, it is pretty cool. I love it. I love being Sikh. It makes me feel like I'm, like, the cool one out of everyone at my school. KAT CHOW, BYLINE: Singh says this camp and being around other kids like him - it makes him feel like nobody can stop him. Kat Chow, NPR News, Rockville, Md.

For two decades, Sikh children from all around the country have gathered in Rockville, Md., for an overnight summer camp. They learn about the history of their religion, and how to deal with bullying.

Seit zwei Jahrzehnten treffen sich Sikh-Kinder aus dem ganzen Land in Rockville, Maryland, zu einem Sommerlager mit Übernachtung. Sie lernen die Geschichte ihrer Religion kennen und lernen, mit Mobbing umzugehen.

二十年来，来自全国各地的锡克教儿童聚集在马里兰州的罗克维尔，参加一个通宵夏令营。他们学习他们的宗教的历史，以及如何处理欺凌。

LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: On a day when Roman Catholics around the world traditionally congregate in churches to celebrate mass - on this particular Sunday, some may have found their faith and the church's leadership being tested. Catholic communities are grappling with a devastating grand jury report released last week by Pennsylvania's attorney general. It documents decades of sexual abuses of children - lurid allegations against some 300 priests accused of sexually molesting more than 1,000 girls and boys. We're going to discuss the impact of this report now with three guests - Terry McKiernan, who founded a group called Bishops Accountability, Kurt Martens, an expert in canon law - i.e., church law - at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and Rod Dreher, a senior editor at The American Conservative who wrote a recent op-ed about the church abuse scandal in The New York Times. Welcome to all of you. KURT MARTENS: Thanks for having us. TERRY MCKIERNAN: Thanks for having us. ROD DREHER: Thank you. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: I want to begin with Terry McKiernan. Your group, Bishops Accountability, works to hold bishops accountable for crimes committed by priests under their supervision. Has nothing changed since the sex abuse scandal in Boston broke in 2002? TERRY MCKIERNAN: There have been a lot of changes. And I think the Pennsylvania grand jury report is actually, in a somewhat-neglected section, specific about the changes that have happened since 2002. But they also register some disquiet about the persistence of the old culture. And I would say that extremely urgent in all of this is that we not be lulled by this talk of its history, which was really the church's first response to this devastating report. If it truly is history, at least in part, change the statutes of limitations and open the archives so that we can learn that history. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: I'm curious, Terry, what do you think is different about the Pennsylvania report? Is it the vast number of cases that we now know about, the explicit details? What's different about this one? TERRY MCKIERNAN: There are a number of things. It's the largest. It's the report that names the most accused priests. But I think probably more significantly, I think it's the report that focuses particularly on the second crime. There are always two crimes going on here. There's the crime of abusing a child, and then there's the crime of your superior allowing this to happen, transferring you to a place where you can continue to do this sort of thing. And that second crime has always been neglected. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: Kurt Martens, we've just heard two crimes - abuse against a girl or boy, and the second crime, the cover up. I'm turning to you because you're a canon lawyer, an expert in the religious law that basically governs the Roman Catholic Church. The Pennsylvania report blames bishops for failing to report sex abuse for sending accused priests off to different parishes. What does canon law say generally about reporting priests to secular authorities, and in your opinion, how has that changed in recent years? KURT MARTENS: Well, canon law is silent about reporting to secular authorities save then for the instructions from the Holy See saying that bishops should follow the civil laws of the country when it comes to reporting. But that said, canon law itself considers child abuse a crime that is punishable including dismissal from the clerical state. The other thing is abuse of office, which is also a crime under canon law. And that is something that bishops could be accused of by not executing their office faithfully, as they should. Way too often these crimes were considered as sins that could be forgiven. And it's true, they're sins. But they're also crimes, and that aspect was forgotten. TERRY MCKIERNAN: I must voice a certain amount of skepticism about any focus on canon law here because, fundamentally, change in these situations has come from the outside, not from the inside. I absolutely agree that church procedures need to be aggressive and appropriate in these matters. But so often, regrettably, it's grand juries, attorneys general, lawyers representing survivors, legislators who are forcing the change that the church is apparently unwilling to engage in. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: I want to bring in Rod Dreher. You converted to Catholicism and covered the sex abuse scandal as a journalist. You wrote in The New York Times this week about your decision to leave the church. I want to quote you here - "leaving Catholicism was the spiritual equivalent of a trapped animal gnawing off his own leg to save its life." Tell me, what specifically prompted you to leave? ROD DREHER: Well, when I first started covering the scandal, it was 2001 for the New York Post. I was warned at the time by Father Tom Doyle, heroic Catholic priest who destroyed his clerical career by standing up for victims. Father Doyle said, listen, I can tell that you're a really serious Catholic. If you continue down this path of investigation, you're going to go to places darker than you can even imagine. And he was right. After four years of writing about this story and having to hold on to things like the guilt of Cardinal McCarrick, for example. I've known about McCarrick since 2002 but couldn't report it because nobody who was telling me about McCarrick molesting seminarians would go on the record. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: And again, reminding people who Cardinal McCarrick was. ROD DREHER: Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was the archbishop of Washington, D.C., and before that, the archbishop of Newark. And he recently was exposed for having not only molested seminarians in his time in Newark, but also having molested children over the course of his ministry. Anyway, I was in Dallas, Texas, at the time when I left the Catholic Church. It got to the point where I couldn't carry this anymore without losing my mind spiritually. I was in a deep crisis. My wife and I had taken our children to a particular parish thinking it would be a safe place. And it turned out that one of the priests we trusted there was, in fact, suspended by his bishop back in Scranton, Pa., and had come down to Dallas and been put in ministry by the pastor of this parish who deceived his own bishop. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. My wife and I knew that we couldn't trust any of them anymore. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: Roman Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. They're not allowed to have sexual relations. Might a priest be reluctant to report another priest suspected of child abuse because that first priest that we're talking about had an affair at some point? KURT MARTENS: That is perfectly possible. ROD DREHER: Well, in fact, back in 2002, Richard Sipe told me that he did not think that gay men should go into the priesthood at that time, not because he was against gay priests. He was very much on - a progressive on these matters within the Catholic Church, but because... LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: If you will, just remind people who Richard Sipe was. ROD DREHER: Richard Sipe was a Catholic sociologist who studied clerical sexual behavior, and he died just last week. And I think he knew more than just about anybody about celibacy and its breachers within the Catholic church. Anyway, Richard Sipe told me back in 2002 he would advise gay men who felt a call to the priesthood not to accept it at that point not because he was opposed to gay men being priests. He was a progressive. But because he said the culture of sexual exploitation within seminaries, and more generally within the Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic clergy, was such that even a young man, a young gay man who went into the seminary intending to be faithful to chastity and to celibacy, he would face so much exploitive pressure from the networks within the seminaries that if he felt just once he would be compromised, and they would use that against him over the course of his priesthood. But what this system does mean is that those who are sexually compromised by having had affairs with women or men turn a blind eye when they see it happening with minors because they themselves are blackmailable. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: How does it get to a point where you have a Boston or a Pennsylvania? Kurt Martens. KURT MARTENS: Because I think there is another issue that we haven't touched upon yet, and that is the issue of power in the church. Why could McCarrick do what he did? Because he had the power to make or break a career. He had the power to decide about seminarians, whether or not they were ordained or not. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: But these are men of the cloth. Why would those who really do take this seriously and their duty on this planet seriously - why would they worry about their quote, unquote, "career?" KURT MARTENS: Look at the reporting that has happened in the past few days about certain dioceses where some priests have witnessed anonymously about things that were happening, why do they do that? Because they're afraid of retaliation. ROD DREHER: That's true, but that's moral cowardice. How is it that somebody who feels called to be a servant of God trains himself to numb his conscience to the point where they remain indifferent, for whatever reason, functionally indifferent to the abuse of children? It's a mystery that I don't know that we'll ever be able to get fully to the bottom of. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST: We've got to leave it there, gentlemen. Editor Rod Dreher of The American Conservative just joined us. Terry McKiernan of Bishops Accountability also taking part in this roundtable. And Kurt Martens, a canon lawyer who teaches at Catholic University, joined us via Skype from Belgium. Thank you all, gentlemen. TERRY MCKIERNAN: Thank you. ROD DREHER: Thank you so much. KURT MARTENS: Thank you.

NPR's Lakshmi Singh discusses the Pennsylvania attorney general's report with Terry McKiernan of Bishops Accountability; Catholic University of America professor Kurt Martens; and The American Conservative journalist Rod Dreher.

Lakshmi Singh von NPR bespricht den Bericht des Generalstaatsanwalts von Pennsylvania mit Terry McKiernan von Bishops Accountability; Kurt Martens, Professor an der Katholischen Universität von Amerika; und der amerikanische konservative Journalist Rod Dreher.

NPR新闻的拉克希米·辛格与主教问责机构的特里·麦基尔南、美国天主教大学教授库尔特·马腾斯以及美国保守党记者罗德·德雷尔讨论了宾夕法尼亚州司法部长的报告。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: A runoff and a rerun in Georgia, Blago clams up, and Ben Jealous and Sarah Palin's war of words, including some brand new ones. It's Wednesday and time for a... Former Governor SARAH PALIN (Republican, Alaska): Refudiate. NEAL CONAN, host: ...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 talk about the week in politics. As usual, there's a lot to talk about. Newt's candidate and Palin's pick will face off in the GOP nomination for governor of Georgia. Former Governor Roy Barnes awaits the winner. Mr. Goodwin comes to Washington and breaks the unemployment extension filibuster. And Lindsey Graham gives Elena Kagan one Republican vote as she heads towards confirmation on the Senate floor. NEAL CONAN, host: In a bit, Donna Brazile will join us to focus on the case of Shirley Sherrod and the current state of the politics of race. We'll also go to Chicago, where Rod Blagojevich declines his day in court. But first, political junkie Ken Rudin, he joins us here in Studio 3A. As usual, we begin with a trivia question. And Ken? KEN RUDIN: Hi, Neal. Well, you just mentioned Roy Barnes. He won the Democratic nomination for governor. Eight years ago, he was defeated in his bid for re-election. So what I'm looking for, he by the way, he and Bob Ehrlich of Maryland both were elected governor and then defeated, and they would look to return to their job. KEN RUDIN: Who was the last governor who was elected, defeated and returned to that office? NEAL CONAN, host: If you know the last governor to be elected, then defeated and then return to his statehouse, or her statehouse, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also get a fabulous no-prize T-shirt if you get the correct answer. But Ken, I have to start by asking: How did William Shakespeare get involved in the argument between the Tea Party and the NAACP? KEN RUDIN: Well, this started out basically an interview on the Hannity show on Fox News with Sarah Palin, who only talks on Facebook or Fox News, and she was talking... NEAL CONAN, host: She tweets. KEN RUDIN: She tweets, but she doesn't talk to the lamestream media, nor is there any reason to because she would probably, she doesn't want to lose the loyaltality of her base. Sorry. KEN RUDIN: So anyway, so she's talking about the brouhaha between the NAACP and the Tea Party. The NAACP passed a resolution denouncing, condemning racist elements in the Tea Party, and of course, conservatives said this is unfair and not true and blah, blah, blah. And she said on the Hannity show that the White House should refudiate the NAACP on this because Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have sway with the NAACP. KEN RUDIN: And then later, of course, nobody made a comment about the refudiate except for the liberal bloggers out there. NEAL CONAN, host: Of course, yeah. KEN RUDIN: Well, look. I mean, you know, look. We did the same thing when Joe Biden makes a misstep and says crazy things. We just point it out. I mean, it's not because we're liberal or conservative. It's just nutty. NEAL CONAN, host: Joe Biden, by the way, went on "Meet the Press" this week to say he doesn't think the Tea Party as a movement is racist, yes, some nutty elements within it. KEN RUDIN: Right, no, but I'm talking about malapropisms and things like that. And then the next day, or a day or two later, Sarah Palin on her Twitter page said something again, once again, about refudiate. So everybody went crazy. KEN RUDIN: But what didn't happen is that the she, on July 12th, she endorsed Karen Handel, she's a former secretary of state... NEAL CONAN, host: Just before we get to that, she also went back and said William Shakespeare invented new words, too. KEN RUDIN: She said a lot of people were making a big deal of it, and, you know, between misunderestimate or whatever... NEAL CONAN, host: That was a Bushism. KEN RUDIN: That's a Bushism, and things like that. And of course, Will Ferrell on "Saturday Night Live" talked about strategery, making fun of President Bush. So a lot of things have been said - or apocryphal. NEAL CONAN, host: But, well, some mock Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, as you suggest, is showing real political power. KEN RUDIN: Yes, but before we go there, so anyway, so she also went on her tweet, Twitter page and said, she said look, you know, William Shakespeare makes up words all the time, and of course, a lot of people are now comparing Sarah Palin to William Shakespeare, justifiably so. KEN RUDIN: Anyway, but also the upside of Sarah Palin is that she is a potent force in the Republican Party. There's no question about it. On July 12th, she endorsed Karen Handel, who is the former secretary of state of Georgia. KEN RUDIN: She was one among one of four or five Republicans running for governor of Georgia in yesterday's - it turned out to be yesterday's Republican primary, and Handel, who was not considered a frontrunner at all, she led the pack pretty convincingly. And of course, she runs, goes into an August 10th runoff. KEN RUDIN: But again, Sarah Palin, as she did with Nikki Haley in South Carolina and other states as well, she endorses a candidate, and suddenly they come to life, and they just, you know, it makes a big difference. KEN RUDIN: And she didn't even campaign for Karen Handel. She announced it on her Facebook page, and yet it was enough to put Handel over the top. Now, finishing in second place was former Congressman Nathan Deal, who, the day after Palin endorsed Handel, Nathan Deal was endorsed by Newt Gingrich. So everybody is trying to make this as a proxy for 2012. KEN RUDIN: And just for the record, the Democratic primary was won, as we said earlier, by Roy Barnes. He defeated the state attorney general Thurbert Baker, who was endorsed by Bill Clinton. Now, Bill Clinton had a pretty good record for endorsing candidates. He did it in Arkansas with Blanche Lincoln. But Baker lost to Roy Barnes 66 to 22 percent. NEAL CONAN, host: Ouch. KEN RUDIN: In yesterday's Democratic primary. So much for the Clinton magic, at least in that race. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. There's other political news in the week, and let's see, West Virginia has a new senator, and well, we all remember when Mr. Smith went to Washington to stage that incredible filibuster about the Boy Scout camp and everything like that. Well, he comes in and breaks the filibuster. KEN RUDIN: That's exactly what happened. The Democrats were one vote short of extending unemployment benefits insurance. They had basically, they had 59 Democrats, including the two independents. When they lost Robert Byrd, it was 58. Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted against it. That's 57. Then they got two Republicans from Maine, Snowe and Collins, to give them 59, but they were still one vote short of breaking the filibuster. KEN RUDIN: Carte Goodwin, who was a former legal counsel for Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia, was appointed last Friday to fill Robert Byrd's Senate seat. Robert Byrd was the oldest senator. Carte Goodwin is now the youngest senator at 36. He cast the 60th vote, the deciding vote, to break the GOP filibuster. NEAL CONAN, host: And he will be one of the shortest-serving senators because he vows to step aside immediately after the November election for whoever wins the race in West Virginia. KEN RUDIN: And there's some news on that, too. First of all, just a few days ago, the West Virginia state legislature agreed to have a special election this year. Joe Manchin, the very popular governor, announced that he will run. The big news of today is Shelley Moore Capito, the Republican congresswoman, announced she would not run for the Senate race, and so the Republicans are now scrambling. The filing deadline is Friday. They may not have a top-notch candidate to run against Joe Manchin. KEN RUDIN: And one Democrat did announce also today, Ken Hechler, who is 95 years old, even older than Robert Byrd, the late Robert Byrd of course, former secretary of state, former congressman. Ken Hechler announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination - not going to win, but he's running on an environmental program. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see, we've got some callers on the line who think they know the answer to this week's trivia question was the last governor of a state to be elected then defeated and then re-elected, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Dave(ph) is on the line from Charleston, South Carolina. DAVE (Caller): Hi. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi, Dave, go ahead. DAVE (Caller): Thanks. Bill Clinton. NEAL CONAN, host: Bill Clinton. KEN RUDIN: Well, Bill Clinton, you do make a valid point that Bill Clinton was elected governor in 1978, defeated in 1980 and then re-elected in 1982, but Bill Clinton was not the last to do it. NEAL CONAN, host: Not the most recent. So Dave, nice try. Thank you. DAVE (Caller): Great, thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. Let's see if we can go next to this is Kirk(ph), Kirk with us from Columbia, South Carolina. KIRK (Caller): Good afternoon. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi. KIRK (Caller): I was going to say Teddy Roosevelt, but I think Clinton's more recent than that. NEAL CONAN, host: I think Clinton's a little bit more recent than that, but he would have charged up San Juan Hill, too, if he'd had the chance. KEN RUDIN: But now it would be San Juan Hillary. KEN RUDIN: Oh, sorry. NEAL CONAN, host: Anyway, let's thank you, Kirk. Let's see if we can go let's go to Robert(ph), Robert with us from Winston-Salem. ROBERT (Caller): Yeah, I had Clinton, also. So I'm out of it. NEAL CONAN, host: Oh, well, too bad. Thank you for calling, Robert. ROBERT (Caller): Bye. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we can go next to Mitchell(ph), Mitchell with us from Durham, North Carolina. MITCHELL (Caller): Well, I was going to go with Lester Maddox, but surely that's after - before Clinton, as well. KEN RUDIN: But also, Lester Maddox was never defeated for governor. In other words, he ran for governor. Then he couldn't run for re-election. He was succeeded by a guy named Jimmy Carter. Back then, you couldn't succeed himself. So he was never defeated for re-election. I'm looking for somebody who was elected, defeated for re-election and then elected again. MITCHELL (Caller): Thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: We'll come down and chase you with an axe handle there, Mitchell. Thanks very much for the call. Let's see if we go next to Joe(ph), and Joe is with us from Portland, Oregon. JOE (Caller): Yes, I believe the answer is Governor Edwin Edwards of Louisiana. KEN RUDIN: And that is correct. NEAL CONAN, host: Ding, ding, ding, ding. KEN RUDIN: Edwin Edwards, who was elected in 1983, remember he said he couldn't be defeated unless he was found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. NEAL CONAN, host: And he apparently was. KEN RUDIN: Well, he was elected in '83, defeated in the primary in '87, came back and was re-elected in 1991. NEAL CONAN, host: And by the way, we have a correct email on that, too, from Mitchell(ph). So we're going to have to give away two fabulous no-prize T-shirts this week in exchange for a promise to take a digital picture of yourself and email it to us so we can post it on our Wall of Shame. KEN RUDIN: Just for the record, other governors who won, lost and won against were Michael Dukakis, Bill Clements in Texas, Kit Bond in Missouri. But again, Edwin Edwards was the most recent. NEAL CONAN, host: The most recent. Joe, we're going to put you on hold and collect your particulars. JOE (Caller): Oh great, thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much. Let's that's the hold button, okay. KEN RUDIN: I love buttons. NEAL CONAN, host: I love buttons, too. Let's go on, and news this week that, well, as expected, Elena Kagan emerged successfully from the Senate Judiciary Committee but with one unexpected vote, and that was the vote of the Republican from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, who explained his calculation this way. Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina): I'm going to vote for her, and that doesn't mean I'm pro-choice. I'm very pro-life. I'm going to vote for her because I believe the last election had consequences, and this president chose someone who was qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who's in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician. NEAL CONAN, host: So the one Republican vote on the Judiciary Committee. Ken, can she expect more Republican votes when it goes down to the Senate floor? KEN RUDIN: Well, maybe, maybe not. So far, Lindsey Graham is the first Republican to say he's going to vote for her. He was also the only Republican last year on the Judiciary Committee to vote for Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice. KEN RUDIN: Now, while he says, and he's right, that elections have consequences, perhaps votes have consequences, too. We heard from Bob Inglis, I guess it was last week or the week before that. NEAL CONAN, host: Last week. KEN RUDIN: Was it only last week? NEAL CONAN, host: It was only last week. KEN RUDIN: How Republicans in South Carolina do not forget something. By the way, Nikki Haley in the past has also called for a censuring of Lindsey Graham. He's not up until 2014. But there is conservative resentment being built against Graham, and that could be consequential. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Stay with us. Coming up, all about ex-USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who was pressured to quit her job after she was accused of making racist comments. We'll get Donna Brazile's take on what this says about the politics of race right now. That's all coming up with the Political Junkie. 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: Political junkie Ken Rudin is with us, as usual on Wednesdays, and if you can't get enough, you can read his blog at npr.org, download the It's All Politics podcast and solve the ScuttleButton puzzle. NEAL CONAN, host: Over the past couple of weeks, the politics of race devolved into name-calling, selective deafness, deliberate distortion, all culminating yesterday in what now looks to be a case of premature political panic. NEAL CONAN, host: It started with a resolution passed by the NAACP, which called on leaders of the Tea Party movement to repudiate the racist elements within that movement. Through the filter of the news media, some in the Tea Party heard that as a blanket accusation and turned around and accused the NAACP of race-baiting. NEAL CONAN, host: The controversy then escalated when conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a video of a USDA official named Shirley Sherrod making a speech to an NAACP meeting last March, and making what sounded like a racist comment about refusing to provide a white farmer with all the help she might have. NEAL CONAN, host: She was quickly asked to resign. She says her boss told her the video would be all over Glenn Beck that night. But then it emerged the remark was taken way out of context, that she was speaking about how much she had learned from that incident 24 years ago, that the white farmer in question credits her for saving his farm, and now almost everybody is trying to find a way to backtrack. NEAL CONAN, host: We want to hear from you. What does this tell us about the state of politics of race right now? 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: Donna Brazile is a Democratic political strategist, the founder and managing director of Brazile & Associates, LLC, and joins us now on the line from her office here in Washington. And nice to have you back on the program. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Thank you, Ken. It's good to hear your voice. NEAL CONAN, host: That's Neal, actually. Ken's also with us. But that's all right. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Oh, Neal, oh great. NEAL CONAN, host: But does this not seem in a way, in a way another proxy strike in a war between those who suspect President Obama of racism and those who suspect the Tea Party of harboring pools of racism, as well? Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): First of all, I believe this situation was handled poorly by all sides, from the conservative blogger who decided that this was a hot get and put it on the air without getting the full story, to the administration, NAACP and others who overreacted, to other commentators who flamed it, again without getting the full text of her remarks, the context. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): When I heard about the story, the first thing I did was to request a copy of the speech. The reason why is that in looking at the video I give a lot of speeches and especially to audiences similar to the crowd that Mrs. Sherrod appeared before. And I know that you try to tell a story. Normally, it's a story of redemption, a revelation about your own history and past and growing up in the segregated Deep South. So I had enough information for me to want to find out the context and the entire story. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Yesterday, I was able to get a full copy of the speech. I listened to it, and then I went on air at CNN and said that, you know, all sides need to back down, review the entire tape and perhaps listen to Ms. Sherrod. And of course, at the time I went on the air, the Spooners had also gone public. NEAL CONAN, host: That's the family, the white farmer family. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Yeah. That's an incredible story. It's an incredible story, and, you know, she may not be the perfect speechwriter I'm referring to Ms. Sherrod - but she has an incredible story of growing up in the South, making the decision not to go north after a very, you know, terrible accident, terrible incident happened to her father and rather to stay home to try to help those down South to come up with this way of coming up with this way of talking about how she had to overcome her own, you know, concerns, her own fears, her own, you know, deep-seated worry about racism down South. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): And later, you know, she told the story of the first time she was confronted with a white farmer. Look, it's an incredible story. It's part of our American mosaic, and we shouldn't constantly react to issues of race or racism with recrimination. We need to listen. We need to understand. We need to respect each other. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): We need to believe that our motives are not you know, our motives are good when we try to explain this and try to have a conversation about race and racism in American life. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: Well, Donna, several things. I mean, first of all, the video was a deliberate distortion. It wasn't even just, you know, clumsy editing. It was a deliberate distortion. KEN RUDIN: But I'm very interested in the role of the NAACP, who usually I mean, they reacted immediately, saying this is unacceptable, and it's good that she's gone, and they didn't even consider what you considered: looking for the full context of her remarks. NEAL CONAN, host: Or calling their own chapter and saying: What did she say? Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Well, I think in the moment, as they say, we live in a cycle of news that happens so rapidly. And I think, you know, coming off the conference where they issue a resolution calling upon the national Tea Party movement to denounce and to repudiate those members or those chapters that are deliberately inflaming racial tensions, I think coming off of the things that we've seen in the last week, they overreacted. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): They didn't take time they didn't take time. Fox didn't take time. The conservative no one took time to say wait a minute, this is wrong. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Now, I have to tell you full disclosure. It was the NAACP who found the tape, got the tape, had it uploaded and then sent to their headquarters, where I was able to listen and of course see the tape in its entirety. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): But that was because I insisted. I wanted to know before I publicly commented. I wanted to know. I just saw the tape, and I said no, that's not right. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): You could tell. We all know how the story we call it sometimes, those of us who are from the South, it's revelation. We all have these stories because we grew up in an era where our parents, our grandparents, we were personally impacted by racial discrimination. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): And so you have to tell a story because it's a lesson that your parents drill in you when you're a kid. You can't hate. You cannot retaliate. You have to learn how to reconcile and to forgive and then make this a moment of redemption. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): That's what I know, and then when I heard about the organization, the Federal of Southern Cooperatives, again I know that organization, and I know its history. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): So I just spent some time researching, looking into it, and I went on air to urge everyone to take look, just back up. Back up, listen and then comment. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): And I also called on the secretary of Agriculture to review the situation so that Mrs. Sherrod would have a full opportunity to tell her story. I mean, the way that she described being pulled over on the highway and told to resign, I mean, that was just that was incompetent. That was very irresponsible, whoever made that phone call. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, that's what I wanted to ask you. Apparently, her boss made the phone call, and she says it was on behalf of the White House. Tom Vilsack, the secretary of Agriculture, said no, it was his decision, and he is apparently reviewing it now. But do you think this was made at the White House? Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Look, I don't know if it was I don't have the answer. I don't know if it was who made the call and how it was made. The bottom line is it was poorly handled, and I think that the if the White House was involved or if it was just the secretary's office, they acted irresponsibly. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Look, when matters like this arise, when you hear that there's been, you know, an unarmed person shot by a cop, the first thing you think of, well, that person should be taken off the job and put on administrative leave. Well, I think in situations like this, you want to, you know, say hey, we need you to get into the office right away. We need to find out what happened, that you should put someone under administrative review. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): But to tell them to (unintelligible) because of Glenn Beck or whoever, that's just again, we're in this 24-7, crazy news cycle, and everybody was overreacting. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's get some listeners in on the conversation, 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. And Rich(ph) is with us calling from Rochester, New York. RICH (Caller): Hello, how are you doing today? NEAL CONAN, host: Very well, thank you. RICH (Caller): Hi, Donna. I'm a great admirer of yours. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): (unintelligible) Rich. RICH (Caller): There's several points that I want to make about this thing. I think from the beginning, as Obama has been running, as much as we want to talk about post-racial America, I think this all is pointing out how pre-racial or in-racist America we are. RICH (Caller): We're still dealing with these issues. I think I think the right side, the right has taken on that term of a good defense is a good offense. So everything that - they have been calling Obama racist, racist, racist, and I think they do that because there's as you know, there's that angry black man syndrome that Obama has to live with and has to deal with as much as it's kept quiet. RICH (Caller): And now it's gotten to the point where everybody is worried about looking racist. So we have to jump on everything that is racist and, you know, admonish them. So that's what the NAACP did. RICH (Caller): I think we are living in a period of hysteria, and it's absolutely nuts, and it's out of control. NEAL CONAN, host: When you say the right, Rich, do you think that's too broad a brush? Certainly a few on the right, but... RICH (Caller): Because from the beginning of his from the beginning of his campaign, the right has grabbed anything and everything to call Obama a racist. There's nothing in his writings. There's nothing in any speech that I could see that has said that. But, you know, if you look at Glenn Beck and you look at a lot of the voices... NEAL CONAN, host: There's a lot more to the right than Glenn Beck. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Yes. And the things, Rich... RICH (Caller): Yeah, that's true. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): ...that I don't like to do and I try not to do, I try to avoid it, because I know sometimes people go on TV and they say all liberals. RICH (Caller): That's (unintelligible)... Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): And I say that's not true. Not all liberals are the same and not all conservatives are the same. Look, I understand what you're trying to say. Since the election, this historic election, that it was a moment of jubilation. We all celebrated - at least many of us celebrated. I think the country did celebrate this wonderful new chapter that we were about to engage in. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): There are some policy differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. There are policy differences between liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. There are policy differences across the board. But I think that what you're trying to say is that since this election, there has been some people who have tried to, once again, divide us along these racial lines. This is not unique. It's been - racism and racial conflict has been part of our history since the beginning. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): The one thing we have to learn how to do, is not rush to appear that we will simply not tolerate racism from any quarter and then leap and vilify people. We got to make sure that in this new era, whether we call it post-racial or some other term, but I think - I don't believe it's post-racial, but we are in a new era. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): We need to find ways that, as Americans, we come together; that we can have these conversations without us demonizing each other, and we can talk about our differences; because I think it's important for our country and for our democracy, that we not tolerate racism in any way or fashion, but we can talk about our differences. RICH (Caller): Well, I do agree with you. I am wrong by saying the right. But I just -this level of hysteria, we have to - like you said, Donna, we have to back down. We have to - and we have to do something about it. And how do we - why won't they repudiate these... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, there was an incident where the... RICH (Caller): ...the very vicious act that he did? It's very... NEAL CONAN, host: Excuse me. Excuse me. RICH (Caller): ...calculated and vicious. NEAL CONAN, host: Rich, there was an incident after the exchange with the Tea Party and the NAACP, where one of the leaders of the Tea Party Express wrote a blatantly offensive post. And he has been repudiated, been excluded from the Tea Party. RICH (Caller): Yeah. But - and I think this - who - this guy who edited this video - I mean, he has to be - he's got to be repudiated. You got to remove them. Remove these type of people in - on both sides. NEAL CONAN, host: Ken? KEN RUDIN: Yeah. Rich, I was going to say, it was two things. First of all, we don't know who edited this video. Andrew Breitbart said that he showed it as he received it. So, I mean, that could be a truth or - it could be a lie. But we don't even know who he did it. KEN RUDIN: But Donna, I want to point the one thing that Rich said. I mean, again, you hear this thing over and over again, about a post-racial America, and we've heard this in January 28, 2009. That must drive you crazy, because there's more talk about race now in this post-racial era than we've ever had before, it seems. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Well, I - when I first heard it, I said that when Dr. King saw this moment in his "I Have a Dream" speech, he laid out the vision and said this is how we would get to the promised land. But we have to first understand that before we can go into a new era, we have to believe that we've arrived at a mountaintop moment. The reason why we cannot go post-racial is because we still have a hard time talking about race. We're uncomfortable. We don't have a new language. We're using the old vocabulary from the Reconstruction Era and the '60s. We don't know how to raise issues of race without making someone feel defensive or feeling that they have to hit back. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): What I love best about this story - and I have many ways of looking at this story, now that I've gotten out the moment of it myself - is I love the fact that (unintelligible) to sit there as quietly as possible and say, that woman helped us, she volunteered to drive with us, yes, we wanted her - there was a family involved. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): There were people involved. And look at the healing that came as a result of her finding that she - she had peace. She did it. She overcame what was inside of her. There's a moment here that we should look at and say, look, what happened. How dare - they killed. And look what she was confronted with. And she could have said, I'm never going to step up and help, because I'm mad. But she's - rather she decided that she could help him, and she followed through. And that is the moral of the story. There's a redemption. This is about redemption. NEAL CONAN, host: Donna... Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): And I just hope that people don't lose this story. Mrs. Sherrod is not much different than any of us on this phone. We grew up with racial prejudice. We've seen it from both whites and blacks. And we know when we see it. And we feel it in our hearts. And when we urge to succumb, sometime, to the deep-seated history of our own experiences, but we have to move beyond that and not react. We have to resist this. But we can only resist if we face it head on, knowing that we can do better now and we must do better in the future. NEAL CONAN, host: Donna Brazile on the Political Junkie. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: And Eric's(ph) on the line - one last caller - Erick with us from St. Louis. ERIC (Caller): Hi. Thanks for taking my call. NEAL CONAN, host: Sure. ERIC (Caller): As moving as Donna Brazile just described Ms. Sherrod's story and redemption, I think the controversy has virtually nothing to do with race, and everything to do with politics and media culpability. I mean, one of the reasons that people acted so quickly and recklessly was that they knew there's a media outlet that doesn't care to check, to get the full story. ERIC (Caller): They knew that Breitbart is a known distortionist, and they took that material and they put it on the air. And they were prepared to use it as best they could. And the White House knew that they would use it as best they could. And that precipitated this crazy action coming down on Ms. Sherrod. I think it's really a story of media standards having disappeared, in particular, in this (unintelligible)... NEAL CONAN, host: And... ERIC (Caller): ...the facts. NEAL CONAN, host: ...apparently stampeded the decision to ask for her dismissal. And, Donna, you were right to check. But you're right, when the - we just have a few seconds left - but when the news cycle is so fast and so furious, clearly some in the administration want to get out ahead of the story, if they could. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): It's - and that's the saddest part, because let me tell you, as a political commentator on both CNN and ABC, I have an opportunity to jump right in the middle of that cycle. But when the - when it's race, when the conversation is race, I tell people, I know these currents. I know how deep this water is. I try not to jump in. I wait. I try to figure it all out. I don't jump when someone say the Tea Party is racist. I don't jump when they say the NAACP is inflaming race. I don't jump. I know it. I've been it, I've seen it, I've experienced it and I tell everybody what we must not do is, tear to shreds, those who speak of (unintelligible)... NEAL CONAN, host: But I'm afraid what we must do is go to a break, so I apologize for that. Donna Brazile, thanks very much for being with us today. Ms. DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic Political Strategist): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist, founder and managing director of Brazile & Associates. NEAL CONAN, host: Stay with us. The Blago trial coming up. This is NPR News.

Shirley Sherrod, the former head of the Department of Agriculture's rural development office in Georgia, was forced to resign after an edited video clip posted online accused her of admitting racism at an NAACP event. The release of a longer clip of the speech was released has prompted a second look at the incident. Ken Rudin, political editor, NPR Donna Brazile, democratic political strategist

Shirley Sherrod, die ehemalige Leiterin des Büros für ländliche Entwicklung des Landwirtschaftsministeriums in Georgia, musste zurücktreten, nachdem ein bearbeiteter Videoclip, der im Internet veröffentlicht wurde, sie beschuldigte, Rassismus bei einer NAACP-Veranstaltung zugegeben zu haben. Die Veröffentlichung eines längeren Clips der Rede hat zu einem zweiten Blick auf den Vorfall geführt. Ken Rudin, politischer Redakteur für NPR, Donna Brazile, demokratische politische Strategin

前农业部乔治亚州农村发展办公室主任雪莉·谢罗德被迫辞职，原因是此前在网上发布了一段经过编辑的视频，指控她在全国有色人种协进会的一次活动中承认种族歧视。这段较长的演讲片段的发布，促使人们重新审视这一事件。肯·鲁丁，政治编辑，美国国家公共广播电台记者唐娜·布拉西尔，民主政治策略师。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Madeleine Brand. ALEX COHEN, host: And I'm Alex Cohen. ALEX COHEN, host: The first of few memorial services will be held today for Captain Jim Tatreau of the Los Angeles Police Department. He died last month. Tatreau was instrumental in establishing the cold case unit at the LAPD. MADELEINE BRAND, host: The cold case unit looks into unsolved homicides. Cold case units have been glamorized by the movies and by television. MADELEINE BRAND, host: But as DAY TO DAY Karen Grigsby Bates discovered, real life cold case work, well, it last a lot longer than several television seasons. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Los Angeles has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. Ten years ago, there were more than 9,000 unsolved homicides dating back to the 1960s on the books. That's about 45 percent of all homicide cases. Back then, Jim Tatreau headed the elite robbery homicide unit of the LAPD. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: He thought an inter-agency team of police, prosecutors and forensics people could put a dent in the city's unsolved homicide rate. So he started a conversation about that. Dave Lampkin is a retired detective who worked with Jim Tatreau. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: He remembered how crushed they all were when Tatreau's boss initially nixed the idea of a cold case unit. Mr. DAVE LAMPKIN (Retired Detective, Cold Case Homicide Unit, Los Angeles Police Department): I was really disheartened and then again, Jim told me not to worry, it's not over yet. He kind of gave me that wink that he used to give people. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Then a few days later, Lampkin's phone rang. It was Tatreau. Mr. DAVE LAMPKIN (Retired Detective, Cold Case Homicide Unit, Los Angeles Police Department): First thing he says to me, he says, we got a unit. He says, you're going to be in charge. And he says you got six detectives and we want the detectives picked by the end of next week. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: And the LAPD's cold case unit was born. In the last decade or so, more and more units like this have sprung up around the country. TV shows like "Cold Case" have glamorized their work. Ms. KATHRYN MORRIS (Actress): (As Lilly Rush) The timing adds up, Jill Shelby(ph) beaten at a neighbor's house, found the next morning - case was never solved. Mr. JOHN FINN (Actor): (As John Stillman) Are you saying we should open a 27-year-old case now? Ms. KATHRYN MORRIS (Actress): (As Lilly Rush) There's new direction. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Meet Tom Mauriello(ph). He knows why more of these cases are reopening. Professor TOM MAURIELLO (University of Maryland): If you really look at what has changed in the last 10, 15 years for us to believe all of a sudden that we want to look at cases that are five, 10 years old, and it's DNA. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Mauriello teaches criminalistics and forensic science at the University of Maryland. He says every state now mandates DNA collection when felony arrests occur. Sometimes the computer makes a match with previously connected DNA. Mauriello says that match may lead to something - may. Professor TOM MAURIELLO (University of Maryland): Of course, now, just getting a hit in itself doesn't make a case, then you have to take that cold case out and then you have to reinvestigate it and apply that new information to the case. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Andy Rosenzweig is a retired New York City detective. He now consults with other police departments that want to set up their own cold case units. Mr. ANDY ROSENZWEIG (Retired New York City Detective): There have been an awful lot of people who've gotten away with murder. And that doesn't sit well with really any responsible person in the criminal justice system. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Rosenzweig says the pain of victim's families often compels police to continue work on their own on homicides, long after they occur. Mr. ANDY ROSENZWEIG (Retired New York City Detective): I'd say it's fairly common for an officer to be with a case for years and with an uncomfortable feeling that it's unresolved. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: The search to close a long cold homicide case usually doesn't rely on machines like the high-tech stuff in this scene from the TV series, "CSI." KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Unidentified Man: (As Character) (Unintelligible) that gas chronograph mass spectrometer thing. We've no problems there. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Instead, it requires a lot of calling, trolling through old paperwork, and tedious research. Andy Rosenzweig says TV scenarios where crimes are instantly solved from a single fingerprint or bullet casing were great for crimes on TV. Not so in real life. Mr. ANDY ROSENZWEIG (Retired New York City Detective): It sets up unreasonable expectations. And often what they see on the TV show, for a variety of reasons, won't be able to be applied to their particular case. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Recently, a group of cold cases were closed out in L.A. courtesy of the unit Jim Tatreau started. Work from Tatreau's unit enabled the LAPD to arrest Chester Turner for the murders of 10 women over 10 years. It's the largest unsolved serial homicide in the city's recent history. That was Jim Tatreau's final legacy before his death at 58 of brain cancer. Turner's arrest was headline news so most Angelenos realize he's been caught. Dave Lampkin says they don't realize what they might have been spared. Mr. DAVE LAMPKIN (Retired Detective, Cold Case Homicide Unit, Los Angeles Police Department): Jim's actions probably saved a lot of people's lives. Those are repetitive offenders, and if you don't get them now, someone else's going to be killed two years from now, four years from now, 10 years from now. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: An LAPD memorial service with full honors for Tatreau is being held today. A family funeral mass follows tomorrow. KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: Karen Grigsby Bates, NPR News.

Jim Tatreau was a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department when he decided to push for a way to clear the backlog of unsolved homicide cases. The veteran officer was one of the first to promote the idea of a cold case investigations team long before the idea became fodder for television shows.

Jim Tatreau war Kapitän der Polizei von Los Angeles, als er beschloss, auf einen Weg zu drängen, den Rückstand ungelöster Mordfälle zu beseitigen. Der erfahrene Offizier war einer der ersten, der die Idee eines Ermittlungsteams für kalte Fälle förderte, lange bevor die Idee zum Futter für Fernsehsendungen wurde.

吉姆·塔特罗是洛杉矶警察局的一名队长，当时他决定想办法来解决积压的谋杀案。这位经验丰富的警官是第一批倡导设立悬案调查组的人之一，这一想法早在电视节目播出之前就有了。

ALEX COHEN, host: Today at the White House, the president is getting ready to don a white tie and tails. He's hosting Queen Elizabeth. The visit will culminate in a state dinner tonight. Hanging out with the queen may make a nice distraction for the president, who hasn't had much else to enjoy in the news of late. ALEX COHEN, host: Joining us to talk about the White House situation, beyond all pomp and circumstance, is NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. Hi, Ron. RON ELVING: Hi, Alex. ALEX COHEN, host: First off, there are some new poll numbers for the president, and they are kind of grim. Can you tell us a bit more about those numbers? RON ELVING: Yes, the grabber over the weekend came from the Newsweek poll, which has the president all the way down to 28 percent approval, with 64 percent disapproval. And if that sounds low, it is indeed. It's the lowest anyone has had in that poll since Jimmy Carter in 1979. RON ELVING: Now, some of the other polls that are out have been out in the last couple, three weeks are a little better for the president. Some have been up around 35 percent, even a little bit better on approval. Now, these are low numbers, of course, historically for any president, but they look a lot better than being in the 20s. RON ELVING: And right now, the RealClearPolitics Web site overall average for national polls on the president is at 34 percent approval. But the leading edge appears to be this Newsweek poll, and the president seems to be on the down slump again. RON ELVING: Tomorrow, we're going to release the results of the National Public Radio latest poll. And I think we'll be pretty much in line with the national average of the last couple of weeks. ALEX COHEN, host: Ron, what are some of the factors behind those low numbers? RON ELVING: Well, Iraq is number one, of course. The war continues to be a discouragement to pretty much all Americans. There are many people who still support the president's surge policy in Iraq. But even among people who support that, there is a sense that things have gone seriously awry in the number one foreign policy challenge of our time. But let's look at a couple of other things. One of them is the price of oil and gasoline. It always has an effect when gasoline prices pass another notional milestone like three dollars. And the national survey just out today shows that the average gallon of regular in the country is $3.07, so that's very, very high by any standard. Certainly it compares to the way - it begins to reach the way Americans were paying for gasoline back in 1979 when Jimmy Carter hit that low number in a Newsweek poll. ALEX COHEN, host: Of course, President Bush isn't the only guy who's not faring too well in D.C. right now. There's Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz. Over the weekend, those two were compared to contestants on the reality show "Survivor." So, Ron, at what point do you think one of them might get voted off of the island, so to speak? RON ELVING: That may be coming up fairly soon, Alex. The president tends to be loyal to a fault, and that has its virtues. But at the same time, it just keeps the negative stories coming as the process of disciplinary removal goes forward with both the Gonzales case and the Wolfowitz case. RON ELVING: For example, today, we have the resignation of one of the top deputies of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank, a man by the name of Kevin Kellems. And just about every day, there's a bad news story out of that process, where a report is also being finished today that could possibly spell the end of Mr. Wolfowitz's career there. RON ELVING: And later on this week, we'll have Al Gonzales back on Capitol Hill for another grilling, and this time it'll be on the House side where people tend to be less polite. ALEX COHEN, host: So what might President Bush need to do to, kind of, turn all this around? RON ELVING: What he needs is some good news. He needs - if at all possible - some good news from Iraq. This isn't the kind of war that produces a sudden turn-around battle or even a clear victory kind of a battle, but what George Bush needs right now is something like what Abraham Lincoln needed in his reelection year of 1864. He needed some battlefield news that was good and encouraging to people. Even FDR in 1944 was looking for that kind of news from the front. RON ELVING: And in both cases, they got it, but in this case, it's not clear it's the kind of war that can give up that kind of news. ALEX COHEN, host: Well, at least President Bush got a bit of good news this weekend. The French elected the very pro-American conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy. RON ELVING: Yes, and who would have thought that the best news story for the Bush administration this year would come from France? It's nice for the president to have a break from all the criticism he's gotten from the continent over the course of his presidency, and he's getting that right now with Sarkozy and also with Angela Merkel in Germany. ALEX COHEN, host: Days of freedom fly so far behind us now. What about - of course, you know, Sarkozy beat Segolene Royal, the female candidate. Any omens there for Hillary Clinton here in the U.S.? RON ELVING: Some might read it that way: a woman of the left loses to a man of the right. But it might have been worse for Hillary in some respects if Royal had won and then struggled over the next 12 to 18 months. And, at any rate, I think we have to say there's a world of difference between French politics and American politics, and maybe what Hillary ought to be saying right now is just vive le difference. ALEX COHEN, host: NPR's senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. Thanks so much, Ron. ALEX COHEN, host: Thank you, Alex. ALEX COHEN, host: Stay with us on DAY TO DAY from NPR News.

President Bush's popularity is flagging, but he is playing host to the very popular Queen Elizabeth II, and has a new ally in France. Here's a look at what might be in store for President Bush.

Die Popularität von Präsident Bush lässt nach, aber er ist Gastgeber der sehr beliebten Königin Elizabeth II und hat einen neuen Verbündeten in Frankreich. Hier ist ein Blick darauf, womit Präsident Bush betroffen sein konnte.

布什总统的支持率正在下降，但他正在接待备受欢迎的伊丽莎白女王二世，并且在法国有了一个新的盟友。让我们来看看布什总统可能会面临什么。

IRA FLATOW, host: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow. IRA FLATOW, host: Up next, the Climategate that wasn't. Last December, hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia caused an uproar. The emails - really a back and forth between climate scientists - were evidence that scientists were allegedly hiding or falsifying climate data. Reputations were dashed, heads rolled. Among scientists involved with those writing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. IRA FLATOW, host: And over the last few months, investigations into the issues found no real hardcore wrongdoing going on there. Last week, for example, a Dutch investigation of the IPCC's 2007 report found that it had no errors that would undermine the IPCC's main conclusion that manmade global warming posed a serious threat to human society. IRA FLATOW, host: A British inquiry in March and a Penn State investigation last week cleared several climate scientists of any misconduct and malpractice. But does that mean everyone believes in global warming and the IPCC report now? Has it been exonerated? Probably not, says my next guest. Joining me now is Andrew Revkin. He's author of the Dot Earth blog at The New York Times and senior fellow for environmental understanding at Pace University. Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Andrew. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): It's great to be with you, Ira. IRA FLATOW, host: Is Climategate over? Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, you know, for those who are dead set to oppose any restrictions on greenhouse gases, Climategate will never be over. They're going to keep - that reverberating echo chamber of the blogosphere will keep asserting that this episode fundamentally eroded understanding, you know, the idea that we have a clear picture of a human warming climate. And that's all -that's not going to change, just because there are people who are immune to evidence. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): In many corners of polarized discourse these days, people pick the evidence that suits - or sometimes manufacture evidence that suits an agenda. Unfortunately, there were enough snippets within this body of stuff, you know, several megabytes of emails and other things, to provide conspiracy theorists with lots of fare(ph) for a long time to come. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): But again, as you said, none of this really undercuts the basic understanding of what's been achieved over 100 years of peer reviewed work on climate. IRA FLATOW, host: There were really two issues involved in it, were there not? Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, it depends - this whole - most of the emails and folders related to one specific part of climate research, which was putting recent warming in the longer term context by using indirect measurements of temperature in the years, the many centuries and millenniums preceding when we had thermometers. And there's a lot of interpolation and imprecision that goes into taking a tree ring, for example, and deducing where the local temperature was. And then there's an even greater body of analysis, incorporating even more uncertainties, that goes into turning those little sort of pixel points into a broader picture of what climate did a thousand years ago. IRA FLATOW, host: Uh-huh. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): That's one of the - that's the one constrained area of research this all was concerned with. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Separate from that, there was a question - there were a bunch of different questions. One was whether papers by competing scientists had been kept out of the IPCC report, which they hadn't. Another was just sort of - there were some, you know - these internal conversations among scientists saying, hey, should we kind of boycott this journal, which has been publishing some jerks? You know, that kind of thing. So there were all kinds of different categories of, you know, questionable discourse of that kind. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. And the IPCC had some stumbling on its own. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah. IRA FLATOW, host: There's a letter the chairman wrote to scientists telling them to avoid the media? Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah. Well, the IPCC is separate from Climategate, whatever you want to call it - but also sort of spurred by it. There was a burst of critique of the 2007 reports of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also over the last year. And the IPCC made some mistakes. It's, you know, a thousand person and plus enterprise spanning years with an ever increasing body of research to vet. Every five years they've had more and more work to assess. And they made some, some errors. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): I think actually they had a bigger problem that was discussed in a Dutch report, the Dutch government report that I blogged on sometime in the last week - it's been busy - that there is a tendency within the IPCC report for the summaries - you know, you have these thousand-page baseline reports and then these brisk summaries. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): The summaries intended to highlight the negative. And that could be - that was spun by some critics of the IPCC as - aha, see, they're trying to play up the alarming aspects of global warming. What the IPCC failed to do and what the Dutch panel said and what I've said in the blog is, it didn't adequately describe to it's users, people like the media, the public and policyholders -by the way, their mandate from the start was, in the summary, is to focus, for policymakers, on the things that would be worst. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): So, yes, there is a torquing, but it was part of what they were asked to do from the very beginning, by these - the countries that created the IPCC. And I think they helped facilitate the wrong kind of spin that they're being alarmists by not explaining clearly, from the get-go, you know, that that was actually what they're supposed to do. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. So how do climate scientists have been impact with - by this? How do they move on? Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): They're learning really slow. There's a letter that you just mentioned. The IPCC is just getting ready for its fifth assessment in 22 years of existence, that will come out in 2013, 2014. And they've just announced the 831 main authors. And the chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, who had - has a tendency, in public, to also kind of step into trouble sometimes by overstating things, which I wrote about last year. But in this case, in the letter - the letter was your normal cautionary letter. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Hello, we're getting started on this big enterprise. You're going to get calls from reporters. It basically said, refer them to me. I think here in Geneva -refer them to secretary, don't... It said - I can't remember the exact line, but it was, keep a distance. I strongly recommend you keep a distance from reporters. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): And if it had not had that line in it, it wouldn't have been as contentious. But it basically perpetuates the idea that there is a group here that has something to defend or to hide, instead of what it is, for the most part, which is, you know, largely open exploration of the literature to try to clarify for the world outside, just verify the realm of climatology, what's going on. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. Let's go to Jim(ph) in Carmichael of California. Hi, Jim. JIM (Caller): Hi. IRA FLATOW, host: Hi, there. Jim: My question is, has the hockey, the so-called hockey stick graph, has that been discredited? Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, let me tell you what it is, for those listeners who don't know. In the late '90s, Michael Mann at Penn - who now is at Penn State and some other researchers, pulled together some of these threads from tree rings and other things and came up with an estimate, over the last thousand years, of temperature, and found that the last 50 years was really outstanding. It stood out as the - a period of warming unparalleled in a thousand years. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): The original paper was riddled with caveats, all these could, would, might, to be sure, kind of phrases. And it - but then it quickly got spun, including by the IPCC in 2001. In the illustration they derived from it, they removed the gray bands that showed you the error, the possible up and down error. And as you go farther back in time, the range of possible error in these estimates is much, much higher. So that was where the problem was. The National Academy of Sciences did a study that assessed this. And largely, there were some problems that they raised with the way it had been done. But since then also, the main thrust of that work has been repeatedly replicated by other groups of scientists. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): So the idea that we're in a period of unusual warming in the last 50 years has not been erased. The - what's been returned is - for the original paper - the sense that it's important to be sure you talk about the things we don't know, even when you talk about what's been learned in climate science. And if you don't do that, then you can be accused of, kind of, oversimplifying things. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah, try to show there's a science and there's room for all wide range of data to be (unintelligible)... Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah. I mean, to me, one of the real problems that really has emerged, you know, in covering this so long - I mean, you and I both, we -getting to be graybeards in this realm - that I think that many scientists have gotten very frustrated with the lack of traction for the - they see this body of information building and the public isn't moving and policymakers, or the treaty makers, are just sort of sitting on their hands. And there's this growing sense of frustration. So that has led, for sure, sometimes, to oversimplification. And to scientists, also, increasingly getting into the advocacy realm, you know, not just telling what is, but telling us what we should do. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): And this even came up this past week. One of the lead authors for the new IPCC round, who's been an author before, Chris Field, was - he co-signed a piece in politico.com., you know, hardly National Geographic website or NPR, or that kind of thing. And there was a line about urgent need for action. And I asked him, just last night - I haven't had time to blog on this, so this exclusive to SCIENCE FRIDAY. He strongly defends the idea of stepping into the public realm and behaving, not just as a scientist, but also as a human being and saying this what I feel. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): My issue with that is - in the signing, in the piece in Politico, it doesn't mention that he's an author of the next round of the IPCC, and it didn't have a disclaimer, saying this is my personal view. And so that, again, can potentially distort or give fodder to - provide fodder to critics of the IPCC, going forward, because an author has basically already stated that there's dangerous things going on and advocated policies, which the IPCC, by its charter, is not supposed to do. IRA FLATOW, host: But there must be room for scientists to - who think that we really are headed towards a terrible state of the planet, to be able to speak and say, we must do something. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah, although it gets into an interesting arena. And, again, Jim Hansen of NASA is one who has really pushed hard - he's gotten arrested at a coal mines. IRA FLATOW, host: Right. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): But when you do that - and Jim is pretty careful about saying, I'm doing this as a human being and a grandfather, not... IRA FLATOW, host: Right. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): And the reality is, when Jim Hansen was talking about his view of crime at legislation, for example, his experience as a climatologist really has marginal significance. That's an arena, you know, where you're dealing with economics and the costs of energy and equity issues, about, you know, fired coalminers versus hired wind turbine builders. So many of those issues involve so many sectors of society that everybody can be in that game. And that includes Exxon Mobile... IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): ...and that includes scientists who are libertarians. If it's okay for Jim Hanson to do that, it should be okay for Pat Michaels at the Cato Institute to do that. IRA FLATOW, host: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): That's what I'm saying. But that's when you're getting into the policy arena, as opposed to Jim Hanson talking about the latest modeling of, you know, how warm it's going to get. IRA FLATOW, host: Talking with Andrew Revkin on SCIENCE FRIDAY this hour from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow. Andrew writes the Dot Earth blog at The New York Times, and senior fellow for environmental understanding at Pace University. IRA FLATOW, host: Let's see if we can get a quick phone call in here. 1-800-989-8255. Is it Tao(ph) in Hillsboro, Texas? TAO (Caller): Yes, yes. IRA FLATOW, host: Hi there. Go ahead. TAO (Caller): Hi. Yeah, I have a question for the guest. I consider myself a skeptic, but not a naysayer, to the idea of global warming as a human activity and CO2 emission. And I'm hoping to be convinced. My problem is, what I've read to hear so far, is just, there's a heaps of data, but I couldn't find a source for the well-built(ph) theories. Like, for example, like the theory of evolution. You can find a high school textbook that you can read about it and then be convinced about it. Data don't make a theory. So I have my pen and paper with me here. If you can give me a website... Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Mm-hmm. TAO (Caller): ...that I can go and read that theory. I went to the website for the U.N. report and just scanned through - I didn't read it. I just couldn't find a thing. It's just heaps and heaps of data. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah. You know what's a good resource? There was a book written, and it's all - the entire book is online. Actually, the online version is fantastic because it's all hypertext. IRA FLATOW, host: Okay. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Everything in it is linked back to the source. It's called "The Discovery of Global Warming"... TAO (Caller): Okay. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): ...and it's by a guy named Spencer Weart, W-E-A-R-T. TAO (Caller): Spencer Weart, W-E-A... Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): E, A, R, T. TAO (Caller): Okay. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Now, if you just Google for "Discovery of Global Warming" and the name Weart. TAO (Caller): Okay, and (unintelligible). Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): And you'll find it - and I review it frequently, because it charts the hundred-year peer review of history as the work that led up to this idea that humans are tangibly influencing the climate. IRA FLATOW, host: And he's no newcomer to this, either. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, Spencer. No, no, he's a physicist and a historian of physics. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah. He's been around awhile. That's a great suggestion, Tao. TAO (Caller): Okay, thank you very much. IRA FLATOW, host: Thanks for calling. TAO (Caller): Bye. IRA FLATOW, host: And, you know, people, I think naysayers, they have a left brain -what they call a left brain, right brain problem, you know? The political side of their mind is now clashing with the logical side. You know, they could see you up in the North Pole pictures of you showing there's no ice anymore up there in the summertime and say, wait a minute, but my political side says that shouldn't happen. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, this gets into this realm. Ira, you know, for the first 15, 20 years writing about climate, I came out of from the physical sciences and the biology. And it's like the last five or seven years, I really started diving into the sociology and psychology - and it's the scariest of all. If you think the glaciologists are saying things that are unsettling, just talk to the psychologists about how the human mind - for the human mind, information is just the starting point. We have all these filters built into us. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): And some of us have very different filters than others that - that's where you hear these phrases like confirmation bias. You go out onto the Web and you find the stuff that reinforces your existing view. And this isn't just among skeptics. This is six - there's a great study that was done, I think, very useful one called Six Americas, looking at people's attitudes about climate. And a group at George Mason University in Yale, they basically have found six kinds of Americans, six kinds of brains - ranging from the alarmed to the dismissive, and very little evidence that new information would dislodge people with those outer, firmer stances. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah. I've always thought that to be true, you know? If you believe that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood, not much anybody's going to tell you, you turn you around? You'll find the data. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Yeah. Yup. IRA FLATOW, host: And make it believe, you know, fit in to the way you believe. We've run out of time, Andrew. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Well, I imagine there'll be more opportunities. IRA FLATOW, host: I certainly hope so. I want to thank you for taking time to take out of your busy schedule this Friday. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): That's okay. And I just posted some more on - the National Academy of Sciences came out with a new report on climate, just today, so there's more on Dot Earth right now. IRA FLATOW, host: All right. So if you go to Andrew Revkin's blog, at Dot Earth blog, you can - at dotearth.com. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Say, and well, nytimes.com/dotearth. IRA FLATOW, host: Okay. If you can't remember that, it's on our website. We'll get you right through it. Mr. ANDREW REVKIN (Pace University): Thanks again. IRA FLATOW, host: Thanks a lot, Andrew. He's author of the Dot Earth blog at The New York Times, get to it on - from The New York Times' website or our website. And also, now he's a fellow at the Environmental - of Environmental Understanding at Pace University right here, a little bit up in New York - right above - a little bit above New York City.

Last December, e-mails written by climate scientists raised suspicion of scientific misconduct and conspiracy. International investigations have since exonerated the scientists of accusations of manipulating data. New York Times contributor Andrew Revkin explains what happened.

Im vergangenen Dezember erregten E-Mails von Klimawissenschaftlern den Verdacht auf wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten und Verschwörungen. Internationale Untersuchungen haben die Wissenschaftler inzwischen von dem Vorwurf der Datenmanipulation entlastet. Andrew Revkin, Mitarbeiter der New York Times, erklärt, was passiert ist.

去年12月，气候科学家撰写的电子邮件引发了对科学不端行为和阴谋的怀疑。国际调查已经免除了对科学家操纵数据的指控。《纽约时报》撰稿人安德鲁·列夫金解释了发生的事情。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: One year ago today, Tropical Storm Harvey became an official, named storm as it formed over the Atlantic Ocean. By the time it made landfall in Texas late August, Harvey had intensified into a Category 4 hurricane packing 130 mile per hour winds. Among the hardest hit cities, Port Arthur, where one of the biggest rainstorms in U.S. history forced evacuations and devastated thousands of homes. DERRICK FREEMAN: Four feet of water - 3 1/2 feet of water. It's just a lake in here. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That was Port Arthur's mayor, Derek Freeman, inspecting his home last year in the storm's aftermath. He joins us now from member station KUHF in Houston. Mayor Freeman, welcome to the program. DERRICK FREEMAN: Thank you for having me. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: It's been nearly a year since you were wading through water - right? - in your city. What's the state of cleanup and rebuilding? DERRICK FREEMAN: We're finally finding a balance and getting services restored and back online in the city of Port Arthur. When our city got hit with the 50, 60 inches of rain, not only did we get 80, 85 percent of the structures in our city affected by the storm, but we lost all of our fleet. We lost police vehicles. We lost garbage trucks. We lost - pretty much our whole Fleet Operation Center went down. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: When you're driving through neighborhoods, what do these streets look like where people are not back in their homes? DERRICK FREEMAN: You know, the neighborhoods are littered with travel trailers, with manufactured homes, with debris piles depending on what stage of reconstruction or rehab you are. We have toilets in the front of people's homes next to the tent that they're living in because their home is inhabitable right now. So from a year ago, again, we've made some progress, but we have so much further to go. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: You talked about the damage to, you know, more than 80 percent of the homes there. And I think I heard something like $1.3 billion in damage coming from the city's recovery plan. Have you been receiving the assistance you need from - let's start with the federal government? DERRICK FREEMAN: If you would have asked me, say 12 months ago, if the response was happening fast enough, I'd say maybe. But now, you know, a year later, looking at the devastation that people are still living in, the dollars just hasn't gotten here. We had an appropriation bill that passed in February. But you know, for the first five, six months, we had people point fingers at each other saying, you didn't vote for my Sandy bill, or you didn't vote for this bill, all in the meantime while people are hurting. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: It sounds like what you're saying is no to the federal government. And in the state government, you've only recently gotten some kind of appropriation. DERRICK FREEMAN: Yes, ma'am. You know, the way it works - the state had some dollars. The governor's office was gracious enough to go ahead and infuse $11 million to us within the first couple of weeks after the storm to help us get debris up. But the long-term recovery dollars - the ones that's going to help us to rebuild our homes, the infrastructure dollars, they haven't gotten there yet. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: School's probably about to start. And with so many displaced families and probably kids - what kind of psychological toll has the recovery taken on the community? DERRICK FREEMAN: It's been stressful. Folks have a mild portion of PTSD. This has been a long year for our citizens and our citizenry. But again, we're resilient, hardworking, blue-collar folks. So we're strong and we're going to bounce back. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: When citizens of Port Arthur call your office, what are they saying to you? What do they need help with? DERRICK FREEMAN: It's a myriad of things. We have folks that are getting ripped off. One of the most depressing things, one of the most tragic stories is to hear of the contractors that are out there taking advantage of citizens when they're so - in such a hurtful stage. I get the calls about the streets. I get the calls about the infrastructure. I get the calls about resources also. When FEMA denies folks, they call my office and want to know why. So it's - when we answer those calls, it's heavy 'cause people out there are hurting. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's Mayor Derrick Freeman of Port Arthur, Texas. Mayor Freeman, thank you for speaking with us. DERRICK FREEMAN: Thank you for having me. We appreciate it.

It's been nearly year since Hurricane Harvey came ashore in Port Arthur, Texas, before moving to Houston. NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Mayor Derrick Freeman about how the recovery has been going.

Es ist fast ein Jahr her, dass Hurrikan Harvey in Port Arthur, Texas, an Land ging, bevor er nach Houston zog. Audie Cornish von NPR spricht mit Bürgermeister Derrick Freeman darüber, wie die Erholung verlaufen ist.

飓风“哈维”登陆得克萨斯州阿瑟港，后抵达休斯顿，已经近一年时间了。美国国家公共广播电台主持人奥迪·康沃尔采访阿瑟港市长德里克·弗里曼，两人讨论了经济复苏进展情况。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump wants federal regulators to consider a big change in the way that companies report their earnings to investors. Instead of saying how much they make four times a year the way they do now, they would only have to do so twice. He made the proposal in a tweet early this morning. NPR's Jim Zarroli reports. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: In his tweet, the president said he's asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to see what would happen if companies reported their earnings less frequently. He told reporters later that he got the idea from the leaders of the companies, their CEOs. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And I thought of it. And it made sense to me because, you know, we are not thinking far enough out. We've been accused of that for a long time, this country. So we're looking at that very, very seriously. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Trump says he wants to consider requiring companies to report their earnings every six months instead of every three. It would ultimately cut back on the amount of paperwork companies have to contend with, but it would also mean investors would get updated less often about how a company is doing. Mike Roe (ph) is a professor at Harvard Law School. MARK ROE: The problem is if the firm has gone dark for six months instead of three months, the chances of the stock market's expectations being out of line with what really happens increases. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Investors might want to hear from their companies more often, but Trump is addressing what's viewed as a longstanding problem in corporate America. Critics have long said that having to report every three months means companies don't focus enough on their firm's long-term health. They're constantly having to worry about the expectations of Wall Street investors, who tend to want immediate profits. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: In June, the world's most famous investor, Warren Buffett, and JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon together wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about this focus on immediate gratification. Appearing on CNBC, Buffett criticized the practice of companies giving guidance about future earnings. WARREN BUFFETT: It's a very, very bad practice. And once it gets going, it feeds on itself. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Buffett wants more companies to voluntarily stop giving earnings guidance. But Trump's proposal would go a lot further than that. Amy Borrus is with the Council of Institutional Investors, which advises big investors, such as pension funds. AMY BORRUS: Investors need timely, accurate financial information on which to make informed investment decisions. You know, it's widely recognized that quarterly reporting adds discipline and accountability for companies. And it helps keep companies honest. JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: Harvard Law School professor Mike Roe adds that having to report twice a year instead of quarterly isn't enough to change the culture at most companies. So if the goal is to encourage more long-term thinking by companies, he says, Trump's proposal probably won't accomplish that. Jim Zarroli, NPR News.

In a tweet, President Trump said switching from quarterly reporting to every six months would save companies money and give them more flexibility.

In einem Tweet sagte Präsident Trump, dass die Umstellung von vierteljährlicher auf halbjährliche Berichterstattung Unternehmen Geld sparen und ihnen mehr Flexibilität geben würde.

特朗普总统在一条推文中表示，将季度报告改为半年报告将为企业节省资金，并给予企业更大的灵活性。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Good morning. I'm Rachel Martin. If you're a soccer fan at the World Cup in Russia right now, getting your hands on a cold beer could be proving harder than usual. Apparently, everyone is drinking so much beer in celebration of the beautiful game that Russia is actually running out. According to Reuters, some bars and restaurants in Moscow have gone through all their beer supplies. One bartender said fans drank more than 211 gallons of beer in three days. The sun makes them thirsty, he said. Yeah, I'm sure that's it. It's MORNING EDITION.

According to Reuters, some bars and restaurants in Moscow have gone through all their beer supplies.

Laut Reuters haben einige Bars und Restaurants in Moskau alle ihre Biervorräte aufgebraucht.

据路透社报道，莫斯科一些酒吧和餐厅的啤酒供应已经全部告罄。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: A few weeks ago, a tweet about retirement advice caused a big old uproar on Twitter. Here's what it said. By the age of 35, you should have twice your salary saved, according to retirement experts. This tweet was from the news site MarketWatch, promoting an article about retirement goals, and it clearly touched a nerve. Cardiff Garcia and Danielle Kurtzleben from NPR's Planet Money team bring us this story. CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: If you are around 35 and that tweet freaks you out, that would be pretty normal. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Right. Because if you take all the workers between the ages of 35 and 44 who have 401(k) retirement accounts, and if you look at the typical person from that group, that person has just 59 percent of his or her salary saved. In other words, not even close to that twice-your-salary amount that MarketWatch was tweeting about. So that's what they do have. Let's get to what they should have. Here's what one retirement expert thinks of that twice-your-salary-by-35 rule. ALICIA MUNNELL: That seems like a lot. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: That's Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: She says these benchmarks are slippery because they depend not only on your income but also on things like when you start working, how long you plan to work, how well you invest your money and, also, how long you live. And this is where we need to take a pause and acknowledge something super important. Even talking about savings, we're missing a big part of the picture. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Around half of workers don't have a retirement plan at all. So Americans seem to be in bad shape retirement-wise. CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: But this also raises questions about how fundamentally flawed our retirement system is. Is there something about 401(k)s themselves that makes saving kind of tough? And who better to ask than the ultimate 401(k) source? Ladies and gentlemen, the creator of the 401(k). DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: You're known as the, you know, the father of the 401(k), or the inventor of it. How do you feel about those titles? TED BENNA: I'm fine with them. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: OK. Meet Ted Benna. Back in the early 1980s, he worked at a benefits consulting company, and the bank had asked him to design a replacement for cash bonuses for its employees. At the time, there was a relatively new provision in the tax code, that is Section 401(k), and it would allow people to put off receiving part of their salary, invest that money in a retirement account and allow employers to match. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: I've read that these were originally called Salary Reduction Plans. Am I right on that? TED BENNA: Well, yeah. Exactly. 'Cause that's what they were. That's what they are. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Even though Benna is the father of the 401(k) and he's proud that they've helped save people trillions of dollars, he knows the 401(k) is not perfect, not by a long shot. TED BENNA: It's become much too complicated for the average employee. And then, you know, the fees are way in excess of what they need to be. CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: And, over the years, Ted has given a lot of advice for how people should best manage their retirement money. TED BENNA: Remember, these are ideals. I've always said, hey, look, start at 1 percent. Get in the game. DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: And if you aren't in the game, the alternative to saving more now is working longer down the road. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Get in the game. That's Danielle Kurtzleben and Cardiff Garcia from NPR's short, daily economics podcast, The Indicator from Planet Money.

America faces a retirement crisis, as most people aren't on track to have enough saved by the time they retire. We talk to the inventor of the 401(k) about how it was all supposed to work.

Amerika steht vor einer Rentenkrise, da die meisten Menschen nicht auf dem richtigen Weg sind, um bis zu ihrer Pensionierung genug gespart zu haben. Wir sprechen mit dem Erfinder des 401(k) darüber, wie das alles funktionieren sollte.

美国正面临着退休危机，因为大多数人在退休前都没有足够的储蓄。我们与401(k)计划的发起者谈论它是如何运作的。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: There was an epic battle that took place last night at the IBM offices in San Francisco. A computer formally debated a person in what some experts are billing as a breakthrough in artificial intelligence. NPR's Laura Sydell was there, and she's with us. Hi, Laura. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Hello. Good morning. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So this sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. Was it as cool as it sounds? LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Well, you know, it was just this person standing next to this obelisk-shaped computer thing so it didn't look very interesting. DAVID GREENE, HOST: (Laughter) OK. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: You know, truthfully. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, then why did IBM want to do this? What was this about? LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Well, it was to show off some actually pretty cool new computer skills. You know, IBM has made news in the past for, you know, a computer that beat a world champion in chess, and it also beat champions at the game "Jeopardy!" This is a little different because in a debate, there aren't clear rules. There isn't a numerical score. So they built this computer. It's called Project Debater, and they put it up against two experienced debaters. DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. So the computer was actually talking to two people? I mean going back and forth debating something. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: That is right. DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: It actually spoke, you know, for four minutes and then for two minutes. It went through a formal debating process. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Can we say who won? Did the computer beat the humans? LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Well, you know, actually I'd say it was a draw in the sense that there were two debates and they pulled the audience, which was largely journalists, ahead of time to see how they felt about a particular topic, and then they pulled them after. And in one case, the computer actually did in fact beat the human. And the computer argued that telemedicine - that was the topic of the debate - was a good thing. And there was kind of a funny moment where the human debaters said that they didn't think that telemedicine was good - this is when doctors treat people from a distance - because you didn't have the physical hand of the doctor or the nurse, and the computer responded with some humor. It said, I am a true believer in the power of technology, as I should be. DAVID GREENE, HOST: As I should be. (Laughter) Wow. The computer making a joke, that's amazing. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: It's pretty good. I did speak with one of the debaters, Noa Ovadia, and she was relatively impressed with the computer. NOA OVADIA: I think the machine has reached an incredible degree of fluency, both in terms of sentence construction and in terms of argument construction. And I think it's at the level where it's comparable to some average debaters. Maybe not the best in the world, but definitely well-informed reasoning and logical construction. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So is this a big moment? I mean, is artificial intelligence, has it totally arrived? Are computers definitely getting as smart as us, or smarter? LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Well, I think it's significant in showing that a computer can create a coherent argument and pull together information and make a case. I mean, the computer didn't know what the debate would be ahead of time. OK? It had to actually sort through millions of documents and look for language that would help it make its case in real time. So mostly the language it used came directly from text. And ultimately what this means is that we could start to use computers - say, a lawyer could use it to make better arguments, or it might help doctors and patients decide on the best course of treatment or it could help you even pick stocks. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Wow. Can I get one of these computers anytime soon? LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: Well, alas, it's not going to come out into the consumer market. You won't be fighting yet with Alexa and Siri (laughter). DAVID GREENE, HOST: (Laughter) OK. NPR's Laura Sydell on a computer debating a human. Laura, thanks. LAURA SYDELL, BYLINE: You're welcome.

IBM unveiled a computer that is taking artificial intelligence to the next level. The computer debated a person in front of a live audience. Who won?

IBM hat einen Computer vorgestellt, der die künstliche Intelligenz auf die nächste Stufe hebt. Der Computer debattierte mit einem Person vor einem Live-Publikum. Wer gewann?

IBM发布了一款将人工智能提升到更高水平的计算机。计算机在现场观众面前与人辩论。谁赢了？

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: This is a valuable moment to recall the Trump administration's public embrace of separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border. It's valuable to recall it because the policy has come under so much criticism that the administration has begun to deny the policy exists. It is, however, all on the record, much of it broadcast on this program, as we will discuss with NPR's Scott Detrow, who's in our studio. Scott, good morning. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Morning, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So let's listen. Who first described this zero-tolerance policy of arresting everybody who crossed the border illegally, which meant in many cases taking children away? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Let's start with the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an immigration hard-liner. Here he is speaking on May 7. JEFF SESSIONS: If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you. And that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring him across the border illegally. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So they're very clear. Although it is clear also that that's not necessarily required by law. Previous administrations did something different. But they're making it clear they're going to separate the children. Who else has talked about this? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Well, John Kelly, the chief of staff, said in an interview with NPR's John Burnett that the administration sees it as a deterrent. This is a long clip, but it's worth taking a listen to. JOHN KELLY: But a big name of the game is deterrence. If your... JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE: And so family separation stands as a pretty tough deterrent. JOHN KELLY: Could be a tough deterrent, would be a tough deterrent, a much faster turnaround on asylum-seekers. JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE: Even though people say that's cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children. JOHN KELLY: Yeah. I think cruel and heartless - I wouldn't put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of. JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE: Yeah. JOHN KELLY: They're put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States. And this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So a deterrent to children put into foster care or whatever, in Kelly's words. Has the administration continued to push this policy? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: They have. Just Friday on MORNING EDITION, Ryan Patrick, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, said this. RYAN PATRICK: We are following the law. I mean, there's many people who... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: But let's remember also you can follow the law in a different way. Previous administrations have. This is a policy choice. RYAN PATRICK: Well, it is a policy choice by the president and by the attorney general. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Policy choice by the president and the attorney general. But over the weekend, the criticism became so fierce that Kirstjen Nielsen, the secretary of Homeland Security whose people are largely responsible for implementing this policy, sends out a tweet. Quote, "we do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period." It's clear they do have a policy. So when she falsely denies it, what's happening here? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Well, you've seen the administration come under blunt, intense criticism from people who are usually Trump allies or people who don't weigh in on politics at all. Just in the last few days, former first lady Laura Bush called this cruel and immoral. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who's the most high-profile American conservative voice in the Catholic Church, he said this is unjust, un-American and unbiblical. Even evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham have criticized this in similar language. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: President Trump, I guess we should mention, keeps insisting that Democrats are to blame for this policy, which is also false. It seems this is a policy choice by the administration. But what is the president up to? He is insisting that there ought to be a change in the law in some way. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Well, it's interesting. You have the - many people in the Trump administration denying that they're using this as some sort of political leverage in the broader conversation about an immigration bill, but President Trump is leaning into that pretty hard. Here's a couple tweets from this weekend. This is one - the Democrats should get together with their Republican counterparts and work something on border security and safety. Don't wait until after the election because you're going to lose. He also wrote, Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the border by working with Republicans on new legislation. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, which is essentially saying, make me do this by changing the law in some way but as part of a broader bill that includes things like funding for a wall that I want. So what is Congress actually going to do here, if anything? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: This was already going to be a big week for immigration. The House is going to hold votes on a couple different immigration bills aimed at dealing with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, creating some sort of permanent protection, and also increasing border security. The issue is that for months now Congress has not been able to find a way to satisfy people who want a fix for DACA and people who want hard-line immigration changes. It's hard to do both. They haven't had the votes to do both yet. They're going to try again this week. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And now one bill would in some way ban family separation, although it would allow the zero-tolerance policy of arresting everybody to continue. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: The short summary is that children would be kept with their parents but within ICE detention facilities. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Scott, thanks very much. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Thank you. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Scott Detrow.

Children are being taken from parents who have crossed illegally into the U.S. Republicans introduced a bill that would end the practice, but it would require Democrats to agree to fund a border wall.

Die Republikaner legten einen Gesetzentwurf vor, der die Praxis beenden würde, aber die Demokraten müssten sich bereit erklären, eine Grenzmauer zu finanzieren.

美国共和党人提出一项法案，要求民主党人同意为修建边境墙提供资金。

IRA FLATOW, host: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow. Evidence is mounting that Mars was a very, very wet planet billions of years ago. But how wet was it, oceans worth, lakes, rivers? And if it was wet, where did all that water go? IRA FLATOW, host: Those questions are getting more attention recently with the publication of new research analyzing the Red Planet's watery history. Joining me now to sort it out for us is Ron Cowen. He is an astronomy writer for Science News. You can find his articles on water and Mars at sciencenews.org. Welcome back, Ron. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Thanks, Ira, hi. IRA FLATOW, host: Lots of evidence for water. What's going on about the oceans here? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): There may be oceans, or there may be just shallow, localized patches of water. It's unclear. I mean, some of the people go back and forth, even in the new research. Some of the new work is saying that in the northern plains, which is really flat, people have looked at dried-up - what appear to be dried-up river deltas. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And they all seem to be at the same altitude, which is what you'd expect if there was an ocean there that kind of flattened everything. And these people in the June 13th Nature Geoscience say that there could be there could have been an ocean that formed this region like this, and it would've been I'm sorry I'm going to use meters - but it's a 550-meter-deep ocean if we spread across the entire planet. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): But there's other people, however, who say that, you know, from the chemical evidence, if there was water, you ought to see a lot of minerals that were altered by water, clays, like the clays we have at the bottom of the ocean. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And there are some in the north and even more so, apparently, in the south of Mars, but not a lot. And then there so there are people who say, well, you know, there never was an ocean. Maybe there were brief wet periods, maybe up to say 10,000 years, and then it stopped. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And that may have been good for localized habitats for life, but it was not an ocean, and it may not have been global. So there's people sort of going back and forth or debating on both sides of the issue, really. IRA FLATOW, host: One other piece of evidence that they've published was the finding of some, what they think may be 40,000 dry riverbeds. That would carry a lot of water, would it... Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Right, and that would have been that's where they get the idea of a 550-meter-deep ocean. That's right. But then I know that there are other people like Phil Christensen, who's a scientist who's on many of the Mars missions, saying that, you know, such things like these dried-up riverbeds, well, you might have only needed water for, say, 10,000 years at most to form these, and then somehow it went away. And he just keeps saying that the mineral evidence, the clays and minerals are just they are there on Mars but not in large amounts. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And there's a mineral called olivine, which is very, very susceptible to being altered by water and changed into other compounds, but there is a lot of olivine on Mars, and that would indicate, well, maybe there wasn't water because there shouldn't be so much olivine there if there was an ocean. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): So people agree that 3.5 billion years ago or so, there was some water, but it's not clear how much. What people are telling me, too, is that the Mars Science Laboratory, which is supposed to be launched in late 2011 and land on Mars in 2012, that they should pick a place where there is a little bit of this chemical evidence and, you know, look around there, dig around there, and maybe that may really help settle the question. Or go some of these places, again, where there was localized water, and look for life there. IRA FLATOW, host: So they're saying the only way you're going to really settle it is to send something there. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): That's right. IRA FLATOW, host: To dig a hole. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): To one of these interesting places where they have found these what they call phyllosilicates, which are really clays that have been formed in the presence of water. Go and take a look there because there's some new research where people have a lot of these places where there is chemical evidence for water, the reason they know that is that impactors have pummeled Mars and excavated through the lava that covers a lot of Mars, excavated deep down and found these chemical signatures of water-altered minerals. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And so people are saying, well, go and land there because that might be one of the most interesting places for life and to tell exactly how much water was there and when. IRA FLATOW, host: And of course, the question is if there was this much water there, where did it all go? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Right, that's true, too. Now, some of it may have evaporated. Some of it may be now beneath the surface, maybe just beneath the surface, and some of it may have migrated or frozen at the poles. All of that is maybe true and, you know, people have suggested drilling into Mars, and some of these frozen deposits of water may not be that far beneath the surface. But that is also still a puzzle, yes. IRA FLATOW, host: Is there anything that looks like a shoreline that would be leftover... Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Yes. In, well, some people say in the northern parts of Mars, in the northern plains, there are what looks like shorelines. And other people are debating that and saying, well, maybe, and then saying okay, these may look like shorelines, but then why don't we see all these water-altered clays that should accompany that? IRA FLATOW, host: But wouldn't you if you just think it through a little bit about how the Earth got to be wet, right, and the theory now is that there were comets carrying water, things like that, to our surface, well, Mars is almost the same size as Earth. Wouldn't we think it would be bombarded with the same kind of comets creating oceans and water like that? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Right, or right, or those, there was an early period when Earth and Mars and a lot of the inner solar system was bombarded by asteroids and comets. And what some people say is yes, that may have been when water was delivered, but it may have been just to localized places on Mars. And yes, Earth has these oceans, it may be that Mars never had oceans, that it was just small areas where maybe it melted the ice where these impactors came, and there was a wonderful habitat for a short time. And maybe it was, though short, long enough for life to have gotten a foothold, but then it got cold again after this period of intense bombardment, which we think happened about 3.9 ago billion ended. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): So year, but yes, there could have been water delivered in the same way as Earth. IRA FLATOW, host: It just seems to be, you know, it seems to be illogical, but of course, science is not logical in many aspects. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Right. No, no, it's just that people are I think there's this tension, as I said, between all these wonderful-looking, intriguing, dried-up riverbeds and deltas and things that look like much bigger than our Grand Canyon - that presumably were carved by water on Mars, and yet we don't see the chemical compounds pervasively that we think should be there. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Now, some people say that, you know, Mars was so much blanketed over by lava that we don't have a whole lot of windows deep down to where these water-altered minerals may be hiding, and maybe that's the answer. Maybe it is more widespread, and we just don't see it because we don't have that many places where more recently, asteroids gouged into the surface and exposed these regions. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): But again, that's why they're saying, you know... IRA FLATOW, host: You've got to go there and... Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): You've got to go there, and you've got pick a really great place for the lander. IRA FLATOW, host: The Mars Rovers that are there are not made to do that? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): That's right. They're not I mean, they are they're just more very much on the surface, and they don't, they can just sort of scratch the surface a bit. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): They do go to places where there have been excavations, and they have found definitely some evidence of water sulfates, which are water-altered minerals. But we'd now like to go to a place where these phyllosilicates, as they call them, have really been exposed by big impact craters. IRA FLATOW, host: Would they be easily landable places, or would we be taking a chance? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): That might be somewhat of a challenge, but I think that there - but some of these places I think are on NASA's target list, or there are planetary scientists telling NASA that these would be interesting places to take a look, and it would be worth it to consider it as candidates, candidate landing sites, yes. IRA FLATOW, host: And we still have orbiters looking down? Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Sure, yeah. IRA FLATOW, host: The Europeans have had their missions we've heard about. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Mars Express, and in fact, some of the recent evidence for, in fact, finding some chemical compounds like clays in the north for the first time were found by Mars Express, and I think the Mars NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter both. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): And that was actually a paper in the June 25th Science, saying that no, you didn't need an ocean to do this, but shallow amounts of water were both in the south and the north. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): So some of this all sounds a bit contradictory I realize, or a little confusing, but this story still is being played out, really, and what's exciting is, I mean, they're not just arguing. They're arguing with data, and more data is to come. IRA FLATOW, host: And we have to argue only from what we know about what we see here on Earth. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): That's true, and the point is there are places on Earth where we call them hydrothermal vents where there, you know, there is water, and actually high-temperature places in the sea that wouldn't seem to be hospitable for life but in fact are. And people are saying if there was an impact that struck Mars and melted some water for a short amount of time, hey, that might have been good enough for some sort of life to have begun. IRA FLATOW, host: Yeah. All right, Ron, fascinating. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Okay. IRA FLATOW, host: Thanks for joining us. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Thank you. IRA FLATOW, host: Thanks for taking off from your vacation. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): Thanks. IRA FLATOW, host: I know you're on vacation. Mr. RON COWEN (Astronomy Writer, Science News): I appreciate you saying that. Okay. IRA FLATOW, host: You're welcome. Bye-bye. Ron Cowen is astronomy writer for Science News. You can catch his articles at sciencenews.org. And we always thank folks who take off from vacation to be with us. IRA FLATOW, host: We're going to take a break, and we're not on vacation. We're talking we're going to switch gears and talk about a new kind of life. Remember Craig Venter and his Synthia? Well, the president has a panel that he'd like to have them discuss what to do about this new form of life. So stick with us. We'll be right back and talk about synthetic biology. Don't go away. IRA FLATOW, host: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

Using data collected by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, researchers say they’ve found evidence that more of Mars than previously thought was once covered by water. Science News astronomy writer Ron Cowen describes the research and other recent news about Mars and its watery past.

Anhand der Daten, die der Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter gesammelt hat, sagen Forscher, dass sie Beweise dafür gefunden haben, dass einst mehr Teile von Mars von Wasser als bisher angenommen bedeckt war. Der Astronomie-Autor Ron Cowen von Science News beschreibt die Forschung und andere aktuelle Nachrichten über den Mars und seine wässrige Vergangenheit.

研究人员利用火星勘测轨道飞行器收集的数据表示，他们发现的证据表明，火星上曾经被水覆盖过的面积比之前认为的要大。《科学新闻》的天文学作家罗恩·考恩描述了这项研究和其他有关火星及其过去有水的新闻。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Most of us know Yelp as an online review site, a place to read, and give opinions about everything from restaurants to doctors. But when a 31-year-old waiter named Chase Compton went through a difficult breakup, he turned to Yelp to chronicle the story. Suddenly, strangers looking for a good dive bar, were reading about his first date. Chase Compton joins us now to talk more about this. Hey, Chase. CHASE COMPTON: Hi, how are you? RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm doing well. So, a lot of us, I'm sure, have written about heartbreak at some point in our lives, maybe in a journal, or if we want to do it more publicly, a blog. Why Yelp, Chase? CHASE COMPTON: My only answer for that is I found comfort in just reaching out to strangers because I kind of wanted strangers to reach out to me. So, feeling very lonely. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: OK. So, a lot of your posts are kind of sad, because that's what breakups are, but some are very sweet and show what it was like kind of in the heyday of your relationship. Would you mind reading a little bit of your review of Cafe Mogador? CHASE COMPTON: Yeah, of course. (Reading) Cafe Mogador is our place. It was the scene for some of the best breakfasts of my entire life. Being madly in love, I would sit on the patio and stare longingly into his eyes like I could fall into them like an endless cup of dark brown coffee. We're that couple. It's kind of gross, I'll admit to it. And have you ever seen someone try and use a knife and fork while holding someone's hand? It's like a one-handed-clap, and it's really kind of hard to get anything done. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, this place is a scene for some of the best breakfasts of your whole life? I mean, how much... CHASE COMPTON: I dare say. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ...how much of this is an accurate reflection of your restaurant experience and how much of it was just the headiness of your romance? CHASE COMPTON: I eat out a lot. I live in New York City. I can't cook to save my life. I mean, I would never really call myself a foodie. I'm just a guy who really, really likes to eat. And I like to think I do it well. And I understand it does kind of reflect that everything did taste better with him. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What's the response been online to all this? CHASE COMPTON: It's been really overwhelming, actually. I've received letters from kind of the heartbroken masses all over the world. Anywhere from people in Paris to people in Rio to lots of people here in the States, and even New York. And it's been kind of daunting for me, actually, because people have been writing with broken hearts, maybe looking for answers, and I don't have those answers. I'm just, you know, I'm just as lost as everyone else. Just, you know, just one guy in New York with a broken heart. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Yelp reviewer Chase Compton. Thanks so much for talking with us, Chase. CHASE COMPTON: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is NPR News.

Chase Compton wrote a series of Yelp reviews chronicling his relationship and breakup with the "love of his life." NPR's Rachel Martin talks to him about sharing his heartbreak on Yelp.

Chase Compton schrieb eine Reihe von Yelp-Rezensionen, in denen er seine Beziehung und seine Trennung von der \"Liebe seines Lebens\" aufzeichnete. Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit ihm darüber, wie er seinen Herzschmerz auf Yelp teilt.

蔡斯·康普顿在Yelp上发表了一系列评论，记录了他和“他一生的挚爱”的关系和分手。NPR的瑞秋·马丁在Yelp上与他谈论了他的心碎历程。

NEAL CONAN, host: And now, we're going to switch horses as it were. We're going to look at the auto industry, a year and some after the bailouts. Chrysler and GM emerged from government-funded bankruptcy as leaner, and they hope, meaner organizations. Ford, which did not take the bailout, posted its first profit since the downturn. Sales are up considerably over the last year's level, though that's not saying a lot. And what we used to call the Big Three pinned a lot of hope on new kinds of vehicles, and just talking about the same thing in the housing market, a rosier economy. NEAL CONAN, host: If you make cars or car parts, if you're in sales, call and tell us how your part of the industry is going. 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: Joining us now, from member station WUOM in Michigan, is Micheline Maynard. And she is the senior editor of Changing Gears, a new public radio project in Michigan that looks at the reinvention of the Rust Belt. She is formerly a senior business correspondent for The New York Times. And Micki, nice to have you back on the program. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Thanks so much, Neal. NEAL CONAN, host: And you couldn't help but overhear the news that GM sold more cars in China than it did in North America. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): You know, that's really a turning point. And getting back to your last guest, the thing that the auto industry looks at - really three things that they look at - are the strength of the housing market, the strength of jobs and consumer confidence when they go to predict how the industry is going to do. So until those three things together come back, it's probably going to be a little bit of a tough road for these auto companies. NEAL CONAN, host: The turning point we mentioned, the significance of that statistic, more cars in China than in North America. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): It just goes to show you that the Chinese market, which really kind of dragged along for most of the last 20 years, has pretty much come into its own. I wouldn't say that it's mature by any stretch of the imagination because it's still growing. And that is the place that all the world's carmakers are competing for the Chinese consumer. It doesn't look like the Chinese market has hit anywhere near its peak yet. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Micki Maynard, senior editor at Changing Gears. You're listening TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: As you look at the domestic market, though, remind us of some of the damages that we've seen. How much smaller is - are the American car manufacturers than they were, what, two, three, four, five years ago? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Okay. Well, if you think about the middle part of the last decade, the middle of the aughts, I guess you could say, the automakers were selling about 16 or 17 million cars a year. Last year, they sold about 10.5 million. And this year, they'll do about a million better than that. They're running at about 11.5 million. You know, the rule of thumb used to be that about a quarter of a million cars equaled an assembly line. So if you think about six million cars sales gone, that's an awful lot of people working on an awful lot of assembly lines. NEAL CONAN, host: The industry - I'm just doing the math in my head, about two-thirds the size of what it used to be. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): That's right. Sales are down roughly 40 percent from the peak. NEAL CONAN, host: And all of those assembly lines closing down, are the vast majority of them in the Rust Belt that you're covering now? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, the Manufacturing Belt has taken really a difficult hit. What the Detroit companies in - specifically did, was kind of pull in their operations. You know, they used to be scattered everywhere from California to Virginia, down to Texas, up to Minneapolis. And a lot of those outlying plants of the Detroit companies have closed. And they have really pulled their operations in to focus on the Midwest, on Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, in particular. NEAL CONAN, host: It's interesting. We have this email from Lisa(ph). Northeast Indiana, she wrote, profited from the GM loan, from the - both the Bush and Obama administrations. We have a large GM plant here. It has added many new employees to its already large base of employees. My guess, its affected close to 10,000 jobs, GM suppliers, retail, et cetera. This has also added to the local and state tax base. And that's nice news to hear. But those additions come from subtractions elsewhere. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Yeah. The problem is that I think there's something like 90 General Motors plants that have to be shutdown across the country. And there's actual federal money to do that. Up in Flint, Michigan, the thinking is that shutting down the operations up there, cleaning them up essentially, might create 2,000 jobs, which is more jobs that General Motors has created in Flint in a long time. NEAL CONAN, host: In general, Ford turning a profit. Is Ford the shining star of the Big Three? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Yeah. I think it is right at the moment. One of the things about Ford - as you said, they didn't take the bailout money. And what they did a few years ago is they mortgaged everything they had, everything from the blue oval logo to their factories, to their parking lots, and they came up with a little bit over $30 billion. And they've been working off that money ever since. Now, they still owe a lot of money. They owe about $27 billion, and that's a lot of money to owe. But they're kind of working down that loan, paying it back. And once they can get freed up from that, the interest that they pay on the loan is like the interest you pay on your house. That will give them more money to invest in new products. NEAL CONAN, host: And new products, well, the hybrids, of course, they're already rolling out. But all kinds of new products, that's really seen as the hope and promise? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): It's kind of an interesting time because we're seeing some really old brands like Pontiac, Mercury. Ford has just pulled the plug on Mercury. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): We saw Saturn, which is only 20 years old, but that's disappeared. Hummer has died and some of the brands have been sold. General Motors was able to sell Saab and Volvo is about to be sold by Ford. So they've essentially cleaned house and they've shrunk their operations to what they feel is worth putting money into. NEAL CONAN, host: We're going to talk more with Micki Maynard about the new Detroit, the new Big Three, what's left of it. NEAL CONAN, host: We'd like to hear from you too. If you manufacture cars, if you manufacture car parts, if you sell any of those things, how are things going where you are? Give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr. Stay with us. NEAL CONAN, host: I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Right now, we're talking about the state of the U.S. auto industry. It's a business that Micki Maynard has followed for years. She's now senior editor at Changing Gears. NEAL CONAN, host: If you make cars or car parts, if you're in sales of those things, call and tell us how your part of the industry is going. 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. Just click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, host: And, Micki, we'll get to calls in just a minute. But I did want to ask, a lot of the questions about this had to do with how well the U.S. carmakers could survive their own labor agreements and the labor agreements, indeed, they've reached in the past and the generous pensions that they provided for car workers. How much of this getting out from under is on the backs of car workers? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, that's a very good question. And when your listener emailed earlier, she said new jobs have been added, and I bet that's the Fort Wayne plant... NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): ...in Indiana. But those jobs are coming in at significantly reduced benefits and lower pay than the UAW workers traditionally earned. And I think the UAW would say that our workers deserve every penny and every benefit that we got for them. But what had happened was there was a huge shortfall in the value of retiree health care benefits. The pensions weren't really the problem. It was more of the health care benefit issue. And so when the car makers went bankrupt, the new systems for the companies took that burden off of the carmakers and put it into a health care fund. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to Todd(ph), and Todd's on the line with us from Grand Rapids. TODD (Caller): Hi. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi, Todd. You're on the air. How are things going there? What part of the business are you in? TODD (Caller): I design automated assembly equipment for the automotive industry. We do a lot of robotic assembly, welding equipment. We'll do any part of a line. And we're seeing a little bit of a pick up. But what's been really interesting is, is we're not really seeing any GM stuff on the market anywhere. Generally, we'll get big packets to bid and we will bid tools, dies, welders. And what we're seeing is there's more Ford, Honda, and there was a lot of Toyota, up until they were - they had the recall issues. But what we're seeing is a lot of the GM stuff appears to be all offshore these days. TODD (Caller): So, you know, the American public, I think, doesn't understand that Toyota, Honda, Ford are the domestic ones, and it appears as though Fiat, Chrysler and - which is now Chrysler... NEAL CONAN, host: Yes. TODD (Caller): ...and GM seemed to be China or elsewhere. NEAL CONAN, host: That's interesting. Obviously, the American taxpayer still owns huge chunks of both Chrysler and General Motors, Micki. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): That's right. TODD (Caller): Yeah. I mean, they seemed to be very heavy on the domestic tooling. They're not releasing tooling money anywhere at all. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): That's really interesting to hear, because I think in General Motors' case, there's so much that they had to close down, you know? In bankruptcy, they put it all into what's called old General Motors or Motors holding. And they're going to spend years, actually, shutting down all those factories and getting rid of those operations. It could be a while before GM is in the position to be placing orders. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): But you bring up a good point. Half the American auto industry is foreign nameplates, and it's companies like Toyota and Honda and Hyundai and Nissan that are building cars in the United States. So, you know, hopefully, you can benefit from those investments. TODD (Caller): Well, many of my customers are sitting on $2 million lines that the old GM purchased. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Mm-hmm. TODD (Caller): And even though they're still making the same parts for the same car, they renegotiated all their contracts under the new GM and they're telling my customers, sorry, the old GM owes you that money. NEAL CONAN, host: Not the new GM, not the one that actually has any money. TODD (Caller): Right. Now, they're sitting on these fully functional lines that are ready to run parts and nobody is buying them. They're not getting paid for them. It's really amazing to see what's happening. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Todd, we wish you the best of luck. TODD (Caller): Yeah. Thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Bye-bye. Let's go next to - this is Brian(ph), Brian with us from Belvidere in Illinois. BRIAN (Caller): Yeah. Hi. How's it going? Thanks for having me on the show. NEAL CONAN, host: What part of the business are you in? BRIAN (Caller): I'm actually in manufacturing. We - at Chrysler, we make the Jeep Caliber - Dodge Caliber, I'm sorry, Jeep Compass and Jeep Patriot. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. BRIAN (Caller): I was hired in there as a temporary employee and they told us that we'd be working, you know, five weeks to five months. And so far, I've been there eight months now and things are actually looking pretty good. We're actually hearing that they got a green light to do a 500,000-square-foot addition on the building. So... Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): That's good. I've actually been to that plant, Brian. I was there when it was building the Neon and they were just switching over to do the Caliber. So one of the issues for Belvidere has been hiring of temporary workers because that has been a lot cheaper for Chrysler, which is now under Fiat's control, rather than hire people in full time. But at least you're getting some work out of the whole arrangement. BRIAN (Caller): Yeah. Hopefully, you know, with the whole addition and everything, hopefully, you know, we're - it's pretty positive to see us get hired in, hopefully, you know. That's - the hopes that we have. NEAL CONAN, host: On full-time basis. Do you know what they're going to use that addition to make? BRIAN (Caller): Well, the rumors and speculations have led us to believe that it's going to be - 2012, all the models that we actually make are no longer going to be made. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Hmm. BRIAN (Caller): And there's actually been talk about bringing a Fiat model here. And, you know, since... Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): That... BRIAN (Caller): ...since we've been the ones that have been building, like, the Neon and the Caliber and everything, they're the smaller vehicles that Chrysler makes, we're actually pretty good contestants to get that vehicle at our plant. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Mm-hmm. BRIAN (Caller): So... Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): And one of the things that Chrysler definitely needs are smaller vehicles because this was a company that was 75 percent pickup trucks and minivans and SUVs. So the more smaller vehicles, the more it'll be a little bit more adjusted to what demand is in the car market. NEAL CONAN, host: Hmm. BRIAN (Caller): Yeah, yeah. I'm actually - I'm looking really forward the whole Fiat thing. I just - I really hope that they can get their reputation back up, you know. NEAL CONAN, host: Well... BRIAN (Caller): That way, everyone realizes that, you know, they're a decent car and they can trust that they're being built here in America and everything. So... NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Brian, good luck. BRIAN (Caller): All right. Thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much. And that raises questions about Chrysler, indeed bought by Fiat, generally regarded - I don't think generally regarded - I think I can say it as fact, the weakest of the three, and how is it surviving? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, Fiat has 20 percent stake in Chrysler, so they dont actually own them, they actually just have management control of them. But the interesting thing about the Chrysler-Fiat relationship is that, you know, Fiat is a global success story. And their CEO, Sergio Marchionne, is considered to be, you know, the hot CEO right now in the auto industry. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): One of the cars they're going to be bringing out is the Fiat 500, which is - if you know the BMW MINI, it's that kind of car. It's one of those iconic, little European cars. They call it the Cinquecento in Italy. And the new version came out in Europe a few years ago and was a huge hit. And now they're going to bring it over here itll be built in Mexico -and give it a try in the United States market. They're picking out the first 200 dealers that will get to sell it. And I think it goes on sale in about a year. And so there's now a competition among Chrysler dealers to see who will get to sell the Fiat 500. NEAL CONAN, host: Chrysler is also bringing out a new version of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the commercial that's just been seen on TV talks about, well, the things that made us American and the things we make. Unidentified Man: As a people, we do well when we make good things and not so well when we don't. The good news is this can be put right. We just have to do it. And so we did. This, our newest son, was imagined, drawn, carved, stamped, hewn and forged here in America. It is well-made and it is designed to work. This was once a country where people made things, beautiful things, and so it is again. The new Jeep Grand Cherokee. NEAL CONAN, host: And it goes on, obviously, a little industrial nationalism there. And yet, as you say, they're also perfectly happy to make new cars in Mexico when that suits their plans, too. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, it's a global auto industry. It's kind of interesting that the music under that commercial is, "Sooner or Later, God Will Strike You Down" by Johnny Cash. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): So I think you want to be a little careful when you get too, you know, too confident in things like that. Maybe a little humility isn't a bad idea sometimes. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an email from Ray(ph) in South Carolina. Since Mercedes took back control of the Sprinter division, these vehicles have been flying out of the factory here in Ladson, South Carolina. I am assuming sales are good. What's the Sprinter division? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): The Sprinter is a - sort of a Mercedes product. It's kind of a large van to transport people in - have a little bit of a funny shape. It's the kind of thing that if you're taking, you know, your family of 12 to a baseball game, they might rent a Sprinter to take them. NEAL CONAN, host: So not a mass-market vehicle? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): No, not a mass-market vehicle. I think at one time Mercedes thought that they could sell quite a lot of them and it's still a little bit on the quirky side. But clearly, if they're - if the assembly line is going full bore, that's good news for Mercedes and Daimler. NEAL CONAN, host: Jerry(ph) emails us: We make automotive seating at Fisher Dynamics at St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Mm-hmm. NEAL CONAN, host: An article just ran on our local paper saying that we will be adding approximately a hundred jobs due to new business. Much of this is due to the Chevy Volt being made in Hamtramck. It's been a rough few years. Those of us who made it through are feeling a bit more secure. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): The Chevrolet Volt is the next big General Motors car. And it's a plug-in hybrid vehicle. It - they would like you to think it's an electric car. It does have a small motor because it will go for about 40 miles on the battery. It's been - they've been talking about it for about four years now. It's kind of the longest gestation of any car in recent history. It should be out by the end of the year and then more widely available next year. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): They're going to start in three places which are Michigan and California and the District of Columbia. And then they'll add a few more states, New York, New Jersey, Texas, later on. And this is the one that, I think, General Motors is pinning at least its image hopes on. NEAL CONAN, host: Mm-hmm. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): I don't think they can sell enough of them to make too much of a difference. They'll probably sell 10,000 next year and maybe 30,000 in 2012. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Mickey Maynard, who's the senior editor at "Changing Gears." That's a new public radio project that looks at reinvention of the Rust Belt. A former senior business correspondent at The New York Times, joining us from our member station WUOM in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION coming to you from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Brian(ph), Brian's with us from Lansing. BRIAN (Caller): Hey, Neal. How you doing? NEAL CONAN, host: Very well, thanks. BRIAN (Caller): My comment is we're kind of a good news story here at Lansing at the Lansing Delta Township assembly plant. We build the Chevy Traverse, the GMC Arcadia and the Buick Enclave. Prior to the bankruptcy, we had one shift. Now we have three shifts running maximum overtime, and we're trying to keep everybody employed. NEAL CONAN, host: Wow. So that's got to be good news. BRIAN (Caller): Yeah, it's real good news because six months ago, nobody knew if their plant was going to be open. And now, you know, through a series of concessions, I mean, UAW - actually, I'm the UAW president at that location, I don't think we get enough credit for what we did. We get it now. If General Motors is the most profitable corporation on the planet, that ensures our job and income security. So it was a painful lesson but we've learned it. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Yeah, Brian, that's a great plant. I think that's the newest plant in the General Motors system in North America, and it's very impressive. It has some of the most modern manufacturing technology and one the best work systems in the system in North America. So, congratulations to all of you, and I hope you stay running three shifts. BRIAN (Caller): Well, thank you. We're proud of our product. Go out and buy one. NEAL CONAN, host: All right, Brian. Thanks very much for the call. BRIAN (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: Bye-bye. And we've talked generally about Ford and about Chrysler. GM, how's the prospect - how are their prospects? You talk about their hopes for the Volt, but that's just one car. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, GM is really going through a complete reinvention. They have - in a year's time, they have sort of booted all of their senior management. They're now being run by a gentleman named Edward Whitacre, who was the former CEO of AT&T. He's brought in an executive name Chris Liddell from Microsoft. Another one of their vice chairman is Steve Girsky, who's a longtime auto analyst. And you've got people with fresh eyes who are looking at what's left of General Motors and how do you reinvent it for the 21st century. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): It's a kind of thing that all of us who watched the auto industry had been looking for for years and it never happened. And then finally there was a bankruptcy and finally this opportunity to remake the company. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go next to Scott(ph). And Scott's with us from Detroit. SCOTT: (Caller): Yes. NEAL CONAN, host: Hi, Scott. You're on the air. Go ahead, please. SCOTT: Well, actually, I kind of had a funny comment. You mentioned the housing market before. And this past month I bought my first house just outside of Detroit. I work - I got a job - talk about a stable housing market, I got a job working for the Henry Ford Academy as a school teacher, and we actually work in an old General Motors design lab. And my comment had to do with reinventing the image, because actually my father works for the same plant, my brother does, too, that - your last caller, Brian, called in. NEAL CONAN, host: Yeah? SCOTT: So he works at the same plant. And I have the same comment about the Volt and just being more competitive. Yeah, it's not going to make a lot of money, but it definitely will help that image because so long they've relied on this image of like this masculine, truck-driving American, you know, person who buys, you know, buys American. SCOTT: But I believe with the emerging market in China and the fact that you mentioned earlier, there's more cars sold in China than in all of North America that it really - they have to capture that new creative and innovative market. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, Scott, good luck to you and thanks very much for the call. SCOTT: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And he's talking about innovation and you were talking about that earlier, Mickey, and the Volt a transitionary vehicle, really, I think is a fair description of it. In terms of real innovation -transformation, are there plans down the road? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Well, what we're looking at in the auto industry is finally the realization that what they call alternate fuel vehicles, hybrids, electric cars are finally going to be part of the auto industry, a good part of the auto industry. I dont know if people know the commercial that's running during the Tour de France but Lance Armstrong is now representing Nissan and the Nissan LEAF, which is their electric car. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): And Nissan was never a company that really saw the need for hybrid electric cars. They're kind of a laggard in it. But their CEO decided to seize on electric cars and now they're getting a lot of attention for the LEAF. And so, the LEAF for Nissan, the Prius for Toyota, Ford with the hybrid Fusion, General Motors with the Volt, Chrysler when it gets its small cars. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): I think we're going to see a whole new ball game in that sort of smaller, more fuel efficient part of the car market. And that's a big change for the American auto industry. NEAL CONAN, host: And as you looked at those - you mentioned those three factors that the car industry looks at when they draw up their projections. Well, stretch it out. Do the American manufacturers hope to recapture any part of that six million cars that they've lost? Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): I don't really think we'll get back to 17 million car sales a year for a long, long time. I wrote a story for The New York Times about a year ago where we looked at whether people were going to want cars at all. I mean, there are a lot of people moving from the suburbs back into big cities. There are people downsizing their fleets from three cars to two, people who were riding bikes to work, people who are taking the bus or the subway. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Now, of course, if you live in Montana, if you live in a place with no public transportation, if you just love cars, you're going to want a car or a truck. But people are thinking about cars probably for the first time since the beginning of the last century and what they need in their fleet, whether they want a car at all. So the auto industry has to keep that in mind as they develop vehicles for the future. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): I do think we'll recapture some of it. I think we could get back to 14 million cars sold a year. But now there are other choices and now people are thinking about more than just what's in their driveway. NEAL CONAN, host: Mickey Maynard, thanks as always for your time and good luck with your new project. Ms. MICHELINE MAYNARD (Senior Editor, Changing Gears): Thanks so much, Neal. It's always a pleasure. NEAL CONAN, host: Mickey Maynard joined us from WUOM in Ann Arbor. Again, the new project is "Changing Gears," a public radio project that looks at the reinvention of the Rust Belt.

America's Big Three automakers hope the long days of layoffs and losses are behind them. Sales are up dramatically over 2009 levels, but analysts point to a monthly drop in June sales to warn that in spite of their efforts, the American auto industry isn't out of the woods yet. Micheline Maynard, senior editor, Changing Gears

Amerikas Big Three Autohersteller hoffen, dass die langen Tage der Entlassungen und Verluste hinter ihnen liegen. Die Verkäufe sind gegenüber dem Niveau von 2009 dramatisch gestiegen, aber Analysten weisen auf einen monatlichen Rückgang der Juni-Verkäufe hin, um zu warnen, dass die amerikanische Autoindustrie trotz ihrer Bemühungen noch nicht aus dem Wald ist. Micheline Maynard, Chefredakteurin, Changing Gears

美国三大汽车制造商希望，不用再面临长期裁员和亏损状况。汽车销量较2009年大幅上涨，但分析人士指出，6月份汽车环比销量有所下降。他们警告称，尽管付出努力，美国汽车业仍未走出困境。米什莱恩·梅纳德，《换挡》一书资深编辑

ED GORDON, host: Duke University's men's lacrosse program has remained in the headlines as it fights its way through a rape scandal. A couple of the players have gone before the cameras to proclaim their innocence; but what about the alleged rape victim? ED GORDON, host: Commentator John McCann says her lack of public exposure may be working against her. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): Turning his tassel, David Evans graduated a few weeks ago from Duke University with a degree in economics. But there was one more test he'd been prepping for. It was an oral exam, and he appears to have aced it - right there in front of the county jail. Time will tell if he gets a passing grade. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): With no script or teleprompter, that even the Commander in Chief of the United States can't do without, Evans was rehearsed and made good eye contact, standing nice and tall. His oratory declared both his and his Duke lacrosse teammates' unequivocal innocence of raping a stripper one night at one of the most notorious addresses in America: 610 North Buchanan Boulevard. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): And even if his lawyer put him up to this, even if it was some carefully choreographed show, the wonder is how come the accuser hasn't done the same. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): The alleged victim instead remains a mystery woman, known to us primarily as a 27-year-old single mother and student at North Carolina Central University; which is problematic, because suppose she just drops the charges and this case just goes away. She gets to ride off into the sunset and finish school while making good on an offer by the Reverend Jesse Jackson to bankroll her tuition through the Rainbow/PUSH coalition. On the other hand, there's Evans and the other ten Duke seniors from the lacrosse team, plus the underclassmen whose names and future employment are forever tied to this mess. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): Now, one saving grace is that those programs handed out with the hot dogs at lacrosse matches, they didn't contain player photos. Although prospective employers could - well, I'm assuming the interviewing process even gets that far with these guys. And you're probably thinking finding a job is a non-issue for lacrosse boys whose parents are able to $400,000 bails; but that's not fair. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): Hiding behind a story that is, at best, shaky, the accuser has received a fair amount of support, including security from the new Black Panther Party for self-defense. Now, pardon my bad grammar, but ain't nobody gonna lay a hand on homegirl if she comes forward. She'd be in no more danger than the white boys on the lacrosse team who could get jumped by some ornery local brothers. Mr. JOHN MCCANN (Columnist, The Herald-Sun, Durham, North Carolina): It gets argued that rape victims shouldn't have to reveal their identities in order to avoid the shame of being so horribly violated. But the only shame in a rape case is if the woman invites the rape. And most people would agree that nobody would ever ask for that to happen. So there's no reason for head hanging. Let me tell you what is shameful: a justice system that allows the media to play judge and jury while the accused never gets a chance to face their accuser, and the accuser can level such charges behind the cloak of anonymity. But if the accuser is telling the truth, that's all the more reason for her to come forward to shame the evil men all the way to prison. Let me tell you what is shameful: See, this is precisely the way an attorney should be counseling the accuser. Get her story out there, like Evans did. Put a face on the case, and don't talk to me about a single mom in school not being able to afford a lawyer. Maybe she can't, but the accuser does have the powerful district attorney on her side, not to mention the mighty 24-hour news cycle. Let me tell you what is shameful: It won't cost her a dime to stand in even the most remote corner of Durham and have the likes of CNN descending to roll tape while she boldly articulates exactly what happened during the wee hours of March 14th. ED GORDON, host: John McCann is a Columnist for The Herald-Sun in Durham, North Carolina.

Commentator John McCann talks about how public perception is affecting the case of a North Carolina community college student who has made allegations of rape against members of the Duke University lacrosse team. McCann says the woman's lack of public exposure may be working against her.

Der Kommentator John McCann spricht darüber, wie sich die öffentliche Wahrnehmung auf den Fall einer Studentin eines Community College in North Carolina auswirkt, die Vergewaltigungsvorwürfe gegen Mitglieder des Lacrosse-Teams der Duke University erhoben hat. McCann meint, dass der Mangel an öffentlicher Aufmerksamkeit der Frau zum Nachteil gereichen könnte.

评论员约翰·麦肯谈及公众看法对北卡罗来纳州社区大学一个学生案件的影响，该学生指控杜克大学长曲棍球队成员对其进行强奸。麦卡恩说，缺乏公众曝光这一点可能对这名女子不利。

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: When you have issues to work out, communication is key, and that goes for world powers too. Chinese diplomats, military leaders and economists are in Washington this week for the 7th annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. This year's meeting comes amid concern in the U.S. about cyber hacking and tensions over the South China Sea. NPR's Jackie Northam reports. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: In the days leading up to this year's Dialogue, U.S. officials have been trying to highlight the positive aspects of the relationship with China but say they won't gloss over some of the serious issues bubbling up between the two countries. One issue is maritime security. China, in an effort to expand its territorial claims in a disputed area of the South China Sea, raised alarm when it began constructing brand-new islands in the region. DANIEL RUSSEL: Frankly, we're concerned, and others are concerned. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: That's Daniel Russel, assistant secretary of state for East Asia, speaking just days before this year's Dialogue began. He made it clear where the U.S. stands on the South China Sea. China had just announced it would stop work on some of the man-made islands but continue building on others, a move Russel calls troubling. DANIEL RUSSEL: The simple fact is that neither that statement nor that behavior contributes to reducing tensions, and reducing tensions is what we all should want. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: One encouraging sign is that China agreed to a separate round of talks this week focused on maritime security, says Christopher Johnson, a China specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I think the question will be whether they're here to tell us about, you know, their sovereignty and so on - in other words, to adopt a very inflexible position - or whether there's some room for dialogue. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: The U.S. delegation will also have to wait and hear what China has to say about the recent discovery of a massive, sophisticated cyber hack into the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, siphoning off information about 14 million employees and contractors. The Obama administration believes China was behind it. Johnson says cyber security will feature prominently at this week's talks. CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: This whole issue of building evidence, if you will, of the Chinese exploiting big data to be able to build databases on U.S. federal government employees, so this issue is a very big one and one that's not likely to be resolved by these talks. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: Human rights, trade and limits on American investment in China are also on the agenda. All in all, some 90 separate dialogues will take place between the Chinese and U.S. officials, says Douglas Paal, an Asia specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. DOUGLAS PAAL: One of the things that you won't see in this session but is very much on the minds of the political figures involved is teeing up a summit visit by China's president to the United States in September. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: Paal says the Chinese delegation wants the visit of Xi Jinping to go smoothly and will try to lower the temperature this week on a lot of the contentious issues and help pave the way for some big announcement. Paal says it's similar to what happened at the last Dialogue in Beijing. DOUGLAS PAAL: This happened last year in the summer, preparing for when President Obama went to China in November. And they came up with a rather grand joint announcement on climate change and global warming. And I think you'll be seeing more efforts - less properly visible now, but they'll turn up in September when Xi Jinping shows up in Washington. JACKIE NORTHAM, BYLINE: Paal says it all depends on how the talks go this week in Washington. Jackie Northam, NPR News.

Cyber hacking and tension in the South China Sea will be among the issues discussed during the seventh annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, on Monday in Washington, D.C. The three-day event focuses on addressing the immediate and long-term economic and strategic interests of both countries.

Cyber-Hacking und Spannungen im Südchinesischen Meer gehören während des siebten jährlichen strategischen und wirtschaftlichen Dialogs zwischen den USA und China am Montag in Washington zu den Themen. Das dreitägigen Treffen fokussiert auf die aktuellen und langfristigen wirtschaftlichen und strategischen Interessen der beiden Länder

周一在华盛顿举行的第七届美中战略与经济对话将讨论网络黑客和南中国海的紧张局势等问题。为期三天的会议重点讨论两国当前和长期的经济和战略利益。

STEVE INSKEEP, host: On Fridays, we focus on your money at this time in the program, and today we preview a new bankruptcy law that takes effect on Monday. That's prompted a wave of filings as consumers and businesses try to get in ahead of the new rules. The new law will make it harder to erase debts in bankruptcy. It will increase filing costs. Backers say it will cut down on abuses, while critics say it will simply punish those who find themselves in trouble. NPR's Jack Speer reports. STEVE INSKEEP, host: JACK SPEER reporting: STEVE INSKEEP, host: John Lilly(ph), a bankruptcy attorney in Fairfax, Virginia, first began receiving inquiries about the new bankruptcy law over the summer. However, he says it wasn't until several weeks ago that increased numbers of people began coming into his law office. While their reasons for filing for bankruptcy--medical bills, job losses or divorce--were fairly standard, he's noticed a heightened sense of urgency. Mr. JOHN LILLY (Bankruptcy Attorney): Well, they're afraid. They're scared, and most of them are uninformed as to the implications as well as the facts of the new law. SPEER: Under the new law, individuals will face what is called a means test. A person's income will be used to determine whether they'll have their debts erased in one kind of bankruptcy, Chapter 7, or be placed in another type of bankruptcy, Chapter 13, that requires partial repayment of debt. Steve Bartlett is president of the Financial Services Roundtable. His group represents the credit card and auto finance industries, both key backers of the new law. Mr. STEVE BARTLETT (President, Financial Services Roundtable): The goal here is for all sides--consumers, creditors and the legal system--to take some responsibility. SPEER: But consumer groups say lenders bear some of the responsibility for people getting into financial trouble in the first place. Travis Plunkett is legislative director with the Consumer Federation of America. He says the new law does nothing to address that issue. Mr. TRAVIS PLUNKETT (Consumer Federation of America): This bill lets off the hook the creditors, whose sometimes reckless and aggressive lending have contributed to the rise in bankruptcy. There is not a single restriction in this bill on abusive lending, and that makes no sense to us if the real goal of this new law is to bring the bankruptcy rate down. SPEER: Consumer groups say another provision of the law requires people to attend mandatory credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy. They say while that's inherently not a bad idea, it's too little too late. And they say extra paperwork under the new law will also make it more expensive to file for bankruptcy now. John Penn is president of the non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute. Mr. JOHN PENN (President, American Bankruptcy Institute): For the consumers, these will increase by 75 to 100 percent because of the additional requirements. SPEER: Fairfax bankruptcy lawyer John Lilly says that means the average bankruptcy filing in northern Virginia, anywhere from 1 to $2,000, will rise sharply. As for his own business, he expects to file five more bankruptcy cases this weekend. After that, he says, it's not clear what will happen. Mr. JOHN LILLY (Bankruptcy Attorney): It may have pushed a few people to file a little earlier than they would have. I have had an increase in business. Now what's going to happen after the 17th of October is anybody's guess. SPEER: Bankruptcy filings have been rising sharply ahead of the new law. Lundquist Consulting Inc., a firm that tracks consumer bankruptcies, says filings last week nationally were averaging more than 20,000 a day, a new record. For the year to date, bankruptcy filings were up more than 19 percent. Jack Speer, NPR News, Washington. STEVE INSKEEP, host: This is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.

An increasing number of people have been filing bankruptcy claims ahead of a new bankruptcy law that takes effect on Monday. The new law will make it harder to erase debts in bankruptcy and will increase filing costs.

Immer mehr Menschen haben Insolvenzanträge gestellt, bevor am Montag ein neues Insolvenzgesetz in Kraft tritt. Das neue Gesetz erschwert die Schuldentilgung im Konkurs und erhöht die Anmeldekosten.

在新的破产法于周一生效之前，越来越多的人提出了破产申请。新法律会使得债务在破产情况下更难消除，并将增加申请破产成本。

SCOTT SIMON, Host: Mike, thanks very much for being with us again. MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: Thank you for having me again. SCOTT SIMON, Host: How different are what we call the rules of engagement that a private contractor has from those of the military? And do they sometimes differ from mission to mission or company to company? MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: So this notion that contractors run amuck throughout Iraq, firing at will and killing people with impunity is certainly not consistent with what I experienced during my - the first 14-month tour there. SCOTT SIMON, Host: Who takes responsibility for the actions of private security firms in the end? MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: Well, that is the ultimate question. I don't think anybody is quite sure of that. In terms of legal accountability, it's very difficult to understand. Of course, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adjusted, if you will, some six months ago by a slight variation in the language that suggests now that contractors working in concert with the United States military forces in a combat zone fall under the authority, if you will, of the UCMJ. I don't think that's been enforced yet, and it's going to be a very difficult - wicked, if you will, to figure out because they're two entirely different things. SCOTT SIMON, Host: Firstly, we ought to note for the record, the vast majority of private contractors who worked in Iraq aren't conducting missions of lethal force. They are cooking and cleaning and that sort of thing and often hiring local civilians, but why are there so many private contractors protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq anyway as opposed to military units? MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: I think, when you boil it down to the basics, it's a question of numbers. You know, we have a force structure today in the United States Armed Forces that is significantly reduced from 20 years ago. We simply don't have the capacity to provide that protection through the use of military assets. SCOTT SIMON, Host: You've spent a lot of time talking to Iraqis on your various - you almost called them deployments, and why not call them deployments, I guess, in Iraq. Do they sometimes get - are they frustrated or simply don't comprehend the whole idea of private contractors? MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: The rub comes when conditions in Baghdad or in Iraq stymie or impede the ability of the contractors to execute their mission and put the principals at risk. So you end up doing things like driving across medians, going the wrong way against traffic and, obviously, sometimes engaging in the use of firearms. And it's very difficult to reconcile that with the overall strategy of trying to win the hearts and minds of people. SCOTT SIMON, Host: Thanks very much for being back with us, Mike. MIKE HEIDINGSFIELD: Thank you.

The security contractor Blackwater is in hot water with Iraq's prime minister after an incident in which eight civilians died. To find out more about the rules for security contractors in Iraq, Scott Simon speaks with Mike Heidingsfield, who trained Iraqi police with a private company.

Nach einem Vorfall, bei dem acht Zivilisten ums Leben kamen, gerät der Sicherheitsdienstleister Blackwater mit dem irakischen Premierminister in Konflikt. Um mehr über die Regeln für Sicherheitsanbieter im Irak zu erfahren, spricht Scott Simon mit Mike Heidingsfield, der mit einem privaten Unternehmen die irakische Polizei ausbildete.

因一次造成8名平民死亡的事件，安全顾问公司黑水国际惹怒了伊拉克总理。为了了解更多关于伊拉克安保承包商的规则，斯科特·西蒙采访了在某私人公司培训伊拉克警察的迈克·海丁斯菲尔德。

GUY RAZ, host: So, we heard why many Democrats are angry about the tax deal. We move on now to someone who is happy with it. MELISSA BLOCK, host: I'm joined now by Republican supporter of the deal, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. He is the third ranking Republican leader in the Senate. Welcome to the program. Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Thanks, Melissa. MELISSA BLOCK, host: Senator Alexander, what about this insurrection today by House Democrats? They're saying if this is essentially a take it or leave it deal, we're going to leave it. How does that complicate things on the Senate side? Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Well, I wasn't in the Democratic conference. It's a part of an adjustment around here. One of the adjustments is we're moving from a situation where the Democrats have these huge majorities and say we won the election, we'll write the bill, we have the votes - to a situation where the president is trying to act in a bipartisan way by taking some Republican ideas, as well as Democratic. And that just takes a little getting used to. MELISSA BLOCK, host: But one thing that the House Democrats are demanding is flexibility on the estate tax. Do you see any room for negotiation there? Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): I hope not. I mean, we need to settle the estate tax. This is a compromise that makes a lot of sense. It's 35 percent, $5 million exemption. We think it's fair, and we should pass it. MELISSA BLOCK, host: Let's talk about some of the broad contours of what you like about this bill. How do you justify that a quarter of the tax savings in this deal go to the wealthiest one percent of the population? Help us understand why that's fair. Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Well, the goal is to create jobs. And if you raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn on anybody, especially the job creators, you make it harder to create jobs. MELISSA BLOCK, host: And if you look at the proportions, though, of the top, top sector of earners in this country getting the bulk of the benefits, why does that help? Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Well, if you're a small business person in Tennessee, what this means is that you won't be paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more, in taxes and you can use that to create a job. It also means that your employees who work there will get a one-third reduction in their payroll tax payments every two weeks. And maybe they'll spend some more money creating more jobs. So it's a combination of policies that all together are focused on jobs. MELISSA BLOCK, host: Would you want, Senator Alexander, the tax cuts on the wealthiest earners extended permanently, not just for the two years that you've agreed to now? Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Keep in mind, these aren't tax cuts. These are the tax rates that have been in place for 10 years. MELISSA BLOCK, host: But they're set to expire and they would be extended. And I'm wondering if you would want them to extend permanently. Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): That means they're set to go up. So they're not cuts, they're tax increases. It's the largest tax increase in history that's automatically set to go up January 1st. I believe that those tax rates ought to stay the same permanently. Our taxes aren't too low, our spending is too high. That's another debate we're going to be having. But right now, our whole goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. Raising taxes on anybody doesn't do that. MELISSA BLOCK, host: So you would want a permanent extension, then. Curious, then, how that can be justified with the widespread fear about ballooning deficits and the talk about the future that we're leaving for our grandchildren. How do you justify a package of tax cuts that adds $900 billion to the deficit? Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): You keep calling them tax cuts and I have to respectfully disagree with you. You don't cut taxes when you leave tax rates at the same level they are. This is a big tax increase that will happen January 1st. The debt is the second big problem we have. Jobs is the first, debt is the second. Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): One way to reduce the deficit is to increase the revenues. And you increase the revenues of the government by growing the economy. So this is one way to help reduce the deficit by getting revenues up. A second way is to reduce spending and the debt commission, with five out of six senators of both parties voting yes, has recommended a very dramatic way that we could move in reducing spending, which I hope we get to and I intend to try to support. MELISSA BLOCK, host: Senator Alexander, thanks for talking with us. Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER (Republican, Tennessee): Thank you for your time. MELISSA BLOCK, host: That's Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

NPR's Melissa Block talks to GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander about the proposed tax plan. The Tennessee Republican says the plan will result in job creation.

Melissa Block von NPR spricht mit GOP-Senator Lamar Alexander über den vorgeschlagenen Steuerplan. Der Republikaner aus Tennessee sagt, der Plan werde zur Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen führen.

NPR新闻的梅丽莎·布洛克与共和党参议员拉马尔·亚历山大就拟议中的税收计划进行了交谈。这位来自田纳西州的共和党人说，该计划将创造就业机会。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: We're joined now by retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar. In the early '90s, he was commander of Central Command. That's the U.S. military overseer for the Middle East, including Iraq. He's been highly critical of war planning in testimony before Congress and in opinion pieces for newspapers. General Hoar, welcome to DAY TO DAY. General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): Thank you, Alex. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Does it seem to you something is going on with information coming out about what the senior military leadership wants, seemingly contrary to what Mr. Bush wants? General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): I don't think there's any doubt about it. I think the problem has been clearly in the government on the civilian side that has been deceived in the run-up to the war. There's been gross mismanagement of military assets during the war, and a shocking lack of understanding of the political and cultural realities in that part of the world. It's just amazing to me that there hasn't been more discomfort on the part of senior military, and I must say senior civilians as well, that are not political appointees. ALEX CHADWICK, host: I don't recall statements coming out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, albeit unattributed but clearly leaking out of there, saying this is what we think the military should be doing in the next year, two years, and it's contrary to what the civilians want, it's contrary to what the president wants. General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): I don't either. I think it's high time that the senior military people start to speak out. The civilian leadership, both elected and appointed, have responsibility for policies. The question that I would ask is, what is the responsibility of the senior military when you know these people are making bad decisions? Here we are today with 3700 Americans killed and about 25,000 wounded. I think that constitutes a moral responsibility to speak out. ALEX CHADWICK, host: We just heard Michael Desch conclude his interview with Alex Cohen, saying how do officers know what to do; it's not always a black and white decision. General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): Well, the trouble is, is this issue is rarely raised in the more senior educational institutions within the military. As young officers we're all told to argue vigorously with your boss until a decision is made. Once the decision is made, your responsibility is to carry out the mission as stated by your boss. I think that works very well for lieutenants and captains on the ground in combat. I think when you're a three-star or a four-star in Washington or in a combatant command, you have a higher responsibility. After all, our oath is to the Constitution. It's not to the president or the executive branch. ALEX CHADWICK, host: The institution, General, military service, it isn't like a job, is it? I mean in some way it's a calling. It means something very fundamental to the people who are in it. How do you feel about this institution and what it's going through? General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): Well, I think you've characterized it correctly, Alex. Many of us, particularly people that have spent most of our adult lives in it, think of it as a calling. Certainly people that go and literally spend years away from their family in the combat missions, or the requirements aboard ship, or in places like Korea, or Japan, that's more than a job. You're certainly not financially remunerated for the hardships and the difficulties visited on you and your family, not to mention the danger. ALEX CHADWICK, host: So how do you feel when you see something like this going on, which I would characterize as a change in the way senior military officers deal with civilian leadership? General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): I think it's too bad that it's taken so long. I think that it's the right thing. I also believe that there are several ways to get this kind of information out if you disagree with the policy. One of the ones that I know that the United States Congress would like to see happen is for senior officers to be more candid when they are on the Hill testifying. General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): Certainly one of the ways that that can happen and make it pretty easy on the senior officer is to let the members of the committee know that if a certain line of reasoning were pursued, they might uncover some interesting information. Frequently the questions that are asked of senior military people in Congressional hearings are very generalized and don't get down to the nub of the issues. ALEX CHADWICK, host: General Hoar, retired Marine Corps general, thank you very much, sir. General JOSEPH HOAR (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired): Thank you, Alex.

Retired Marine Gen. Joe Hoar discusses his views of the conflict between military and civilian leaders. Hoar was the commander of Central Command, the U.S. military overseer for the Middle East, in the early 1990s. Hoar has been publicly critical of the planning in the Iraq war.

Der pensionierte Marinegeneral Joe Hoar bespricht seine Ansichten über den Konflikt zwischen militärischen und zivilen Führungskräften. Hoar war in den frühen 1990er Jahre Kommandeur von Central Command, dem militärischen Aufsichtsbehörde der USA für den Nahen Osten. Hoar hat sich öffentlich kritisch über die Planung des Irak-Krieges geäußert.

退役海军上将乔·霍尔讨论了他对军队领导和文职领导之间冲突的看法。霍尔在上世纪90年代初期曾担任中央司令部司令，他是美国在中东地区的军事监督员。霍尔一直公开批评对伊拉克发动战争的计划。

STEVE INSKEEP, Host: For today's last word in business, we'll follow up on what might be the latest in air travel. Last week, the CEO of the European discount carrier Ryanair said he might install coin slots on the doors of airline toilets and make passengers pay to go to the bathroom in flight. LINDA WERTHEIMER, Host: Naturally, there was a big stink about this. The airline issued a statement assuring angry passengers, politicians and consumer advocates that while this plan has been discussed internally, there are no immediately to introduce it. STEVE INSKEEP, Host: In a statement, the airline says the idea comes simply from its, quote, "obsession with cutting costs. Charging for the toilet might lower ticket prices for everybody, including those who don't have to use the facilities." Ryanair is often on the cutting edge of airline cost-saving techniques. In fact, it's planning to eliminate check-in counters. LINDA WERTHEIMER, Host: From now on, all passengers would check in online, at home, where the bathroom is free. That's the business news for MORNING EDITION on NPR News. I'm Linda Wertheimer. STEVE INSKEEP, Host: And I'm Steve Inskeep.

The head of Ryanair has suggested the idea of pay toilets. Michael O'Leary said future passengers on his European no-frills airline might be obliged to insert a British pound coin before using the restroom. The airline's staff wasn't sure if he was joking. O'Leary pioneered charging airline customers to check bags, to use a check-in desk and to use a credit or debit card to make an on-line booking.

Der Chef von Ryanair hat die Idee von kostenpflichtigen Toiletten vorgeschlagen. Michael O'Leary sagte, dass zukünftige Passagiere seiner europäischen No-Frills-Fluggesellschaft möglicherweise gezwungen sein könnten, eine britische Pfundmünze einzuwerfen, bevor sie die Toilette benutzen. Die Mitarbeiter der Fluggesellschaft waren sich nicht sicher, ob er Witze machte. O'Leary leistete Pionierarbeit bei Fluggesellschaften, um Gepäck aufzugeben, einen Check-in-Schalter zu benutzen und eine Kredit- oder Debitkarte für Online-Buchungen zu verwenden.

瑞安航空的负责人提出了付费厕所的想法。迈克尔·奥利里说，欧洲无装饰航空公司的未来乘客可能需要在使用洗手间前插入一枚英镑硬币。航空公司的工作人员不确定他是否在开玩笑。奥利里率先向航空公司客户收取行李托运费、使用值机柜台和使用信用卡或借记卡进行在线预订的费用。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: The pills were everywhere. That is how one resident of Walker County, Ala., remembers the height of the opioid epidemic. In a six-year period, more than 66 million opioid pills flooded the rural county, all through legal prescriptions. We know that number thanks to information from a drug enforcement administration database. The Washington Post had made it public last month. The hope was that local journalists would use the database to report on the impact of the opioid crisis in their communities, and reporter Melissa Brown of the Montgomery Advertiser did just that. She joins me now. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Welcome. MELISSA BROWN: Hi. Thank you for having me. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So, Melissa, I understand that you decided to go pretty far from where you're ordinarily based in Montgomery, Ala. You went to Walker County. Why did you choose to go there? MELISSA BROWN: Walker County is several hours from where we're based in Montgomery, Ala. But according to the DEA data, Walker is the worst county in Alabama for these prescription drugs that flooded into the state. And I'm actually from that area of Alabama. That's northwest Alabama, kind of nestled up in the corner there. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Now what is it about Walker County that would make it a prime place for people to be prescribed painkillers? MELISSA BROWN: That's a big question right now, and I think it's something that is going to be explored for a lot of years. But Walker County was home to a lot of mining operations. Before that, manufacturing. So we're looking at very labor intensive, dangerous work. Injuries in mining and manufacturing could be catastrophic, cause a lot of chronic pain. So there are some theories out there that once these mining jobs started to disappear, prescriptions kept going. And it's really become an economical issue as much as a health care one. AILSA CHANG, HOST: And when you visited Walker County for this story, what did you find there? I mean, how much had it transformed, at least compared to the Walker County you remember growing up? MELISSA BROWN: Something that struck me was how much this issue has rippled into every aspect of everyday life in Walker County. The opioid epidemic we talk about as a health care issue, a mental health issue, but it's really become in these communities a huge criminal justice issue. One local judge told me that more than 90% of property crime that he sees in the county is directly related to drug abuse and addiction issues. MELISSA BROWN: And these people are getting caught into this cycle that is very, very hard to break when you think about court costs, obviously criminal sentences. And so it's beyond just the addiction issues, and it's making it very, very difficult for people to break these cycles. AILSA CHANG, HOST: And what about all the kids there? I mean, kids whose parents have died from overdoses or whose parents are incarcerated now, how has the foster care system in Walker County been able to keep up? MELISSA BROWN: Sure, there has been an increase across the state in terms of foster care entries, children who have to be taken further from their homes for whatever reasons. A lot of these kids do get reunited back with their families. But some data that I've recently obtained from the state shows us that in Walker County, nearly half of all foster care cases are directly tied to drug abuse. AILSA CHANG, HOST: When you talk to the residents in Walker County, I mean, how do they talk about the community rebuilding after something like this? Do you hear hope? MELISSA BROWN: There is definitely some hope that addiction is recognized as a mental health issue, and there is some hope that things like law enforcement and government entities are trying to connect people with help versus just prosecuting these issues. It's definitely - it's a multifaceted problem, and I think people in the county realize that and are trying to come up with multifaceted solutions. MELISSA BROWN: A lot of the solutions are faith-based, which makes sense for the area. It's a highly religious area. But there may be concerns out there that that could turn certain people away. So I think there is some hope, but there is also still a lot of people hurting there. And the people who are working in that space are quite overwhelmed and could always use more resources. AILSA CHANG, HOST: That's Melissa Brown, a reporter for the Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama. Thank you very much for joining us today, Melissa. MELISSA BROWN: Yeah, thank you so much for having me.

NPR's Ailsa Chang talks with reporter Melissa Brown of the Montgomery Advertiser about her reporting on Walker County, Ala., which was flooded with tens of millions of opioid pills.

Ailsa Chang von NPR spricht mit der Reporterin Melissa Brown von Montgomery Advertiser über ihre Berichterstattung über Walker County, Alabama, das mit Millionen von Opioid-Pillen überschwemmt wurde.

NPR新闻的艾尔莎与《蒙哥马利广告人》的记者梅丽莎·布朗谈论她对阿拉巴马州沃克县的报道，那里数以千万计的阿片类药物泛滥。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And I'm Madeleine Brand. Coming up, the politics behind President Bush's pick to lead the CIA, Air Force General Michael Hayden. ALEX CHADWICK, host: But before the politics, the man, himself. General MICHAEL HAYDEN (Nominee for CIA Director; General, U.S. Air Force): To the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency, if I'm confirmed, I would be honored to join you and work with so many good friends. General MICHAEL HAYDEN (Nominee for CIA Director; General, U.S. Air Force): Your achievements are frequently under-appreciated and hidden from the public eye. But you know what you do to protect the republic. ALEX CHADWICK, host: That is General Michael Hayden speaking about his nomination today at the White House. Joining us now, NPR Intelligence Correspondent Mary Louise Kelly. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mary Louise, welcome back. And tell us about General Hayden's career in the military and his work in intelligence, please. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: Well, it is a long and distinguished career. He was the longest serving director in the history of the National Security Agency, which he ran until he took his current job. Right now he's the number two official in U.S. intelligence. That means he is director of national intelligence, John Negroponte's deputy, and by many accounts really the day-to-day hands-on manager of U.S. intelligence efforts. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: We understand that Negroponte has taken a bigger strategic role and Mike Hayden is really the one who is running the 16 spy agencies and coordinating their work on a day-to-day basis. So he's certainly very qualified. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Well, aside from the qualifications, what makes him so attractive as a CIA choice for the White House now? MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: Well, you know, I think this is someone that the president feels like he can work with. John Negroponte certainly feels he can work with him, having worked very closely together for the past year. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: Mike Hayden is--clearly has a good track record in managing a large intelligence agency. He is also--he just has a reputation as being a decent, unassuming, down-to-earth guy. He's the son of a welder. He grew up in working-class Pittsburgh. His brother is a truck driver, today. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: So this is not someone you might have expected would grow up to be a four-star general and perhaps head of the CIA. On the down side, just to mention, you know, his experience has focused more on technical intelligence, on spy satellites and code-breaking efforts. He is less schooled in the traditional spy craft and human intelligence that the CIA does. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: So that is something he'll have to master. And then there will also be concern about his military background, concerns about the Pentagon reaching its tentacles out and trying to take over work that has traditionally been the CIA's domain. ALEX CHADWICK, host: If he is confirmed, Mary Louise, what would people at the CIA expect from his leadership? What do they think he would do? MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: You know, it's interesting. We got a little bit of insight into that this morning when John Negroponte, who will be his boss, laid out what his vision for the CIA is. He said he wants it to remain at the center of U.S. intelligence efforts. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: And, and this is what was really interesting, he wants it to keep the lead role for analysis. There has been a lot of speculation that, in all of the reshuffling of intelligence, the CIA, perhaps, might be trimmed down just to become a spy agency, something along the lines of MI6 in Britain. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: And John Negroponte, today, said, not the case, not his vision. He wants it to stay very much the Central Intelligence Agency running both analysis and spy and clandestine efforts. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Now, Mr. Negroponte, the director of intelligence, also had something to say about the person he wants for General Hayden's deputy. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: This was really interesting. It sounds as though the choice to serve as Hayden's deputy will be Stephen Kappes. Kappes, you may remember, was the head of the CIA's clandestine service until Porter Goss, the outgoing director, arrived. There were huge personality clashes. Stephen Kappes marched out. He took his deputy with him. And that was what really launched the whole exodus of top CIA officials. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: Steve Kappes is very respected within the CIA. He's a long-time veteran. This is a man who's negotiated with Kadafi, served as Moscow station chief. His coming back will do a lot, I think, to restore morale. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: It may even open the door to some of the other officials who left the CIA under Goss coming back. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mary Louise Kelly, NPR Intelligence Correspondent. Thanks, Mary Louise. MARY LOUISE KELLY, reporting: Hey, you're welcome.

President Bush appoints U.S. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as the new director of the CIA. Hayden once helmed the National Security Agency (NSA) and is the chief architect of the Bush administration's program of electronic eavesdropping of terrorism suspects without a warrant.

Präsident Bush ernennt General Michael Hayden der US-Luftwaffe, um Porter Goss als neuen Direktor der CIA zu ersetzen. Hayden leitete einst die National Security Agency (NSA) und ist der Chefarchitekt des Programms der Bush-Administration zum elektronischen Abhören von Terrorverdächtigen ohne Haftbefehl.

布什总统任命美国空军上将迈克尔·海登接替波特·戈斯出任中央情报局新局长。海登曾执掌美国国家安全局，是布什政府在没有搜查令的情况下对恐怖主义嫌疑人进行电子窃听计划的总设计师。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: From NPR News it's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Audie Cornish. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And I'm Melissa Block. One couple wore slinky evening dresses, another tie-dye T-shirts and jeans. One couple exchanged their vows in sign language. It was a same-sex wedding marathon yesterday at city hall in Minneapolis, as Minnesota's law legalizing gay marriage went into effect. From midnight to 7:00 in the morning, Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak officiated at 46 weddings on the marble stairs inside city hall. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Mayor Rybak is taking a break from his wedding duties today and he joins me from city hall. Mayor Rybak, welcome to the program. How's your voice doing today? MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: MAYOR R. T. RYBAK: My voice is doing good and I haven't married anybody since, so I think I'm back to real life. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Well, let's go back. This all started back in May when the Minnesota Senate voted to recognize gay marriage rights. And you shouted something into the rotunda of the capitol. What was it that you shouted? RYBAK: I said, if this thing passes, come on down to city hall and I'll marry you. I didn't quite realize how much work that would be for my staff around me but it was also an incredible labor of love. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Did the first of those 46 marriages that you performed feel different from the last ones? I mean, did something start out feeling very historic and by the end it felt routine? RYBAK: Well, when we did the first wedding, it was obviously historic and deeply significant. When I started the second, I started it by saying to the crowd, now we begin the process of making something that's been historic become the routine. And that, I think, is very important. And certainly by the end of the night it felt different. RYBAK: However, we made a huge effort not to make this a conveyor belt of love. And I studied up a lot on the couples before and read their bios. In between weddings I would run up the marble staircase to the second floor, meet them, talk to them for a couple of minutes, really get grounded on why they were doing it, come back down the steps, take my position. Then they would come down, then we'd start all over again. And we did this, you know, 46 times. RYBAK: The reason that was important is that people shouldn't have to wait a minute longer after waiting all those years. But they should also know that this wasn't just them getting rammed through but it was really about the uniqueness of each of them and, boy, did that come out. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And what were some of the things you heard in those conversations that struck you about the couples and the stories that they told you? RYBAK: I overwhelmingly heard that most never expected this to happen in their lifetime. I heard wide varieties of why people got married, many of the ones that you hear in any other situation. But I think in this case there were some who knew there were 515 pieces of Minnesota law tied to marriage. And so, their health care, their home, et cetera, mattered. RYBAK: There were some people who talked about some range of emotion that I guess you could summarize by saying they wanted to be treated just like everyone else. And Kathy(ph) and Margaret(ph), the first couple we married, talked to me about when they were filling out the application. Kathy was coming to work for the city, actually. She filled out the paperwork. It was the day after her honeymoon, after her commitment ceremony and she had to fill out the box - single. RYBAK: These things are about law but they are about the idea of being able to see people together. And I think how people see you through their eyes matters. I saw people look in the eyes of somebody they loved and it change at all because of a marriage, but it did change how other people look through other eyes. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Well, there's at least one conservative group in Minnesota that says it will work to defeat the state representatives who voted for the gay marriage bill. Is it fair to say, do you think, that the support for same-sex marriage that you see there in the Twin Cities is not shared in a good part of the state? RYBAK: The people in Minneapolis/St. Paul are clearly more open to this issue than the rest of the state but it's clearly not accurate to say that there's an enormous gap in different parts of the state. There's a level of support but what's very interesting is when you look at the couples that we married, the vast majority of people who I was marrying started in other parts of Minnesota. RYBAK: And I think people in rural parts of America are far more open on this issue, not because they go to some political meeting but because it's a person they were at church with, a guy on the football team. And as those stories more and more come back to hometowns and as people become more comfortable being there, you'll see what's happening already in Minnesota. This marriage amendment that would've banned all of this was defeated not just because people in Minneapolis/St. Paul felt a certain way, but because people all over the state felt that way. And I think that's the real good thing. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: That's Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak, a wedding officiate 46 times over. Mayor Rybak, thanks very much. RYBAK: Thank you.

After Minnesota legalized gay marriage at midnight on Wednesday, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak kept his City Hall open all night, performing one same-sex marriage ceremony after another. By the wee hours of the morning, he had officiated the weddings of 46 couples. He tells Melissa Block about the experience.

Nachdem Minnesota am Mittwoch um Mitternacht die Homo-Ehe legalisiert hatte, hielt der Bürgermeister von Minneapolis, RT Rybak, sein Rathaus die ganze Nacht geöffnet und führte eine gleichgeschlechtliche Hochzeitszeremonie nach der anderen durch. In den frühen Morgenstunden leitete er die Hochzeiten von 46 Paaren. Er erzählt Melissa Block von seiner Erfahrung.

在周三午夜明尼苏达州同性婚姻合法化后，明尼阿波利斯市市长R.T.雷巴克让他的市政厅通宵开放，一个接一个地举行同性婚姻仪式。到凌晨时分，他已经主持了46对夫妇的婚礼。他把这段经历告诉了梅丽莎·布洛克。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Democrats don't have many options when it comes to blocking the Republican health care bill. So last night, they pulled the one lever they do have. They took to the Senate floor and railed against the legislation. It's part of an effort to slow down the work of the Senate, in protest against the Republican bill that's being produced almost entirely behind closed doors. Republicans hope to vote on the legislation before the July 4 recess. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: For more, we reached Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He is on the Senate health committee. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What do you know about the Senate Republicans' new health care bill? BERNIE SANDERS: That's a very good question. I know nothing about it and nor does any member of the Democratic caucus, nor do most Republicans, nor do most Americans. What is going on is that we have 10 or a dozen Republicans meeting behind closed doors determining the future of one-sixth of the American economy. BERNIE SANDERS: What we do know is that it is going to be largely based on the disastrous House bill which passed last month, which threw 23 million Americans off of health insurance, raised premiums for older workers, defunded Planned Parenthood and which would give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country while cutting Medicaid by over $800 billion. So we think that the Senate bill is being worked on based on the House bill that there will be some changes, but I have no reason to believe that it will not be a disastrous piece of legislation. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You wrote last week in an op-ed in The New York Times - and I'm quoting here - "too many in our party cling to an overly cautious centrist ideology." Do you think that applies specifically in this case to health care? BERNIE SANDERS: Yes, I do. I mean, I think that Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, took us a step forward. It provided health insurance for over 20 million more Americans. That's no small thing. It did away with the obscenity of pre-existing conditions and a number of other essential health care benefits that are now guaranteed to the American people. So it made some real change. BERNIE SANDERS: But, Rachel, at the end of the day, the American people in Congress have got to ask themselves a very simple question. Why are we the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a right? Why do we pay double per capita for health care compared to any other major country? Why do we pay the highest prices in the world by far for prescription drugs? My view is we should join the rest of the industrialized world and work toward a Medicare for all single-payer program. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So how do you do that? Because at this moment, Democrats can't even get into the room to defend the Affordable Care Act. Is tacking so far to the left going to get you anywhere in this moment? BERNIE SANDERS: It's not a question of tacking to the left. What we have right now is a Republican leadership which is very, very far to the right and way, way outside of the mainstream of where the American people are. This health care proposal passed in the House. I don't have the numbers in front of me but you've seen them. I mean, it is widely disapproved by the American people. The American people do not believe it makes sense to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 2 percent and throw 23 million Americans off of health care. That's not what the American people want. BERNIE SANDERS: So what - I think what the Democrats have got to do - it's not a very radical idea - is actually listen to where the American people are. The American people, in fact, within - certainly within the Democratic ranks do want to move toward a single-payer system. You're seeing real progress in the California Legislature and in the New York state Legislature to do just that. BERNIE SANDERS: The American people want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, 15 bucks an hour, want to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, pay equity for women, tackling climate change and transforming our energy system. These are not radical ideas. This is what the American people want. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Some Republicans have complained vocally that they haven't seen the bill, either. BERNIE SANDERS: That's right. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Some like Rob Portman of Ohio said if it's anything like the House bill in terms of the number of people who would lose Medicaid insurance in particular, he won't support it. So are you finding like minds to work with? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think what Rob has got to say is before - it's not even a question of what is in the bill. He doesn't know what's in the bill. And so what the Republicans have got to say, as the Democrats, look, bring your bill forward. I'm a member, Rachel, of the Health education committee. I spent - in terms of the Obamacare - I spent hundreds of hours in hearings and discussions dealing with amendments. These guys are not providing Republicans, people like Portman, with an understanding of what's in the bill. So I think what Portman and other Republicans should be saying, hey, we're not going to vote for any bill that's just presented to us. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Are they your only lever? Moderate Republicans, is that your only way in? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, we are looking right now - we are looking right now as to what our capabilities are. You asked that question. It's a good question. What can we do to make sure that the American people have a right to see this bill and to understand what's in this bill and debate this bill before it is voted on? And I think that the Democrats should do everything possible to delay - to make sure that the American people have a chance to see this bill before it's voted on. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I want to shift the conversation before I let you go because we are talking just days after this shooting that happened. The ranking member in the House is still being hospitalized. This was the shooting last week at the Republican baseball practice. Turned out that the shooter, this man, had volunteered on your presidential campaign. What crossed your mind when you first saw that? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, it's horrible. Look. First of all, let me wish Representative Scalise and the others who were wounded a full recovery. This is a tragedy. Violence has no place in American politics. And all of us have got to do everything we can to see that something like this never happens again. What I can tell you, Rachel, is that during the course of my presidential campaign, we had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of volunteers, people actively involved. BERNIE SANDERS: We had rallies with 25,000, 30,000 people, not one scintilla of violence in any of these rallies. The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of progressives in this country understand what Dr. Martin Luther King taught us is that change comes from the bottom on up. It's when millions of people stand together and fight for justice, and you do it in a non-violent way. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You've been in Congress, first the House, then the Senate since 1991. Fair to say you've seen a lot of partisanship in your time, I imagine. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Does this feel different to you? BERNIE SANDERS: I think that if you look at this health care bill - and I'm trying to be as objective as I can - it is about the worst piece of legislation that I've ever seen, the bill that passed the House. You cannot give huge tax breaks to billionaires and the drug companies and throw 23 million people off of health insurance. BERNIE SANDERS: And then when you look at Trump's budget which would provide $3 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 percent when the top 1 percent is already doing phenomenally, well - and you get that money by making massive cuts in programs for working-class families, I quite honestly have never seen legislation like that since I've been involved in congressional politics. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a member of the Senate committee on health care. Thanks so much for your time, Senator. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you, Rachel.

On the Senate floor Monday night, Democrats railed against secretive effort by Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Rachel Martin talks to Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In der Senatssitzung am Montagabend wetterten die Demokraten gegen die geheimen Bemühungen der Republikaner, das Affordable Care Act aufzuheben und zu ersetzen. Rachel Martin spricht mit dem unabhängigen Senator Bernie Sanders.

周一晚，民主党人在参议院谴责共和党人秘密废除和取代《平价医疗法案》的行为。雷切尔·马丁采访独立参议员伯尼·桑德斯。

ARUN RATH, HOST: The United Nations is calling for medical personnel from all over the world to help control the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says that future epidemics might be prevented by the creation of a standing core of U.N. medics who could rapidly respond to outbreaks. But without such a response team available now, many hospitals in Sierra Leone and Liberia are relying on international volunteers to staff them. Suzanne Donovan is an infectious disease doctor based in Malibu, California. And she just returned from Sierra Leone. Suzanne Donovan, welcome to the program. SUZANNE DONOVAN: Thank you very much, Arun. ARUN RATH, HOST: So first, can you tell us why did you decide to go to Sierra Leone and volunteer with the World Health Organization? SUZANNE DONOVAN: Well, my background as a county physician in Los Angeles is in both infectious diseases and infection control. And there's a tremendous need for specialists in infection control to be in West Africa because of the very large number of healthcare workers that have been infected in isolation and treatment centers for Ebola there. And unfortunately, there's been a very, very high death rate. The hospital that I went to, which is called Kenema General Hospital - the leadership at that hospital - all were infected with Ebola and died. So the hospital has been staffed by the World Health Organization. ARUN RATH, HOST: And the situation there - compared to where they need to be in terms of having the number of beds, the number of facilities they need - where do they stand now? And what were you able to do to help? SUZANNE DONOVAN: The bed capacity in Sierra Leone is so far below than what is necessary. As I'm sure you know, they recently had a 72-hour lockdown of the entire country. And unfortunately, that lockdown occurred without sufficient bed capacity. So when they were going house to house, doing education, which was fantastic, they also were looking for cases. Unfortunately, when they did identify cases, there were no beds in any of the treatment units for anyone who was sick. ARUN RATH, HOST: You went out of your own initiative, right? SUZANNE DONOVAN: That's correct. ARUN RATH, HOST: Now, there's been a perception that state actors, governments have sort of been lagging behind what epidemiologist and doctors have been warning. Do you feel like things are now where they should be in terms of getting the help out there that they need? SUZANNE DONOVAN: I think one of the things that's been lacking is having one agency acting as a public health leader in this crisis. When you have an outbreak like this that transcends borders, you have to have one agency that is coordinating the response to this. SUZANNE DONOVAN: In terms of are we where we need to be, the answer is no. It's fantastic the U.S. is coming in and is going to expand bed capacity. But remember, that's unstaffed beds. So I believe the directive was that they are going to be training 500 individuals a week. My question is where are those 500 individuals going to come from? ARUN RATH, HOST: Dr. Donovan, what would you say that people in this country might be missing about the Ebola outbreak? SUZANNE DONOVAN: I think what the stories that have not been told about the Ebola outbreak - is the impact Ebola has had on the health infrastructure in these countries. So there's thousands of people that have been infected and died from being infected with Ebola. But no one's talking about the many more thousands that are dying because their malaria's not being treated. Their tuberculosis is not be treated. SUZANNE DONOVAN: And one of the ironies is that when a patient goes to a clinic and they have a complaint - maybe they have typhoid disease, or they have fevers because of a chronic cough - they are shipped off to the Ebola unit as a suspect. So not only are they not being treated for what they came to the clinic for, but they now are in a isolation unit and potentially being exposed to Ebola. SUZANNE DONOVAN: So one of the things that I prioritized when I was working at Kenema General Hospital is going into the initial unit and seeing those patients and really trying to get a rapid diagnosis on them so we could get them out of the unit before they were exposed to someone who may have Ebola. ARUN RATH, HOST: That's Dr. Suzanne Donovan. She's an infectious disease specialist at Olive View-UCLA Medical Center. She just returned from Sierra Leone, where she worked with the World Health Organization on containing the Ebola outbreak. Dr. Donovan, thank you so much. SUZANNE DONOVAN: You're very welcome.

Dr. Suzanne Donovan recently returned from a trip to Sierra Leone, working with the WHO on its Ebola response. NPR's Arun Rath talks with Donovan about her on-the-ground view of the Ebola outbreak.

Dr. Suzanne Donovan ist kürzlich von einer Reise nach Sierra Leone zurückgekehrt, wo sie mit der WHO an der Ebola-Bekämpfung arbeitete. Arun Rath von NPR spricht mit Donovan über ihre Sicht auf den Ebola-Ausbruch vor Ort.

苏珊娜·多诺万博士最近从塞拉利昂回来，与世卫组织合作共同应对埃博拉病毒。NPR的阿伦·拉特与多诺万博士共同讨论了她对埃博拉疫情的实际看法。

SCOTT SIMON, host: Marc Lynch joins us in the studios now. He's director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. He writes a blog about the Middle East on ForeignPolicy.com. Marc, thanks for being with us again. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): Thanks for having me. SCOTT SIMON, host: In that scene of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, looking just a little bit uncomfortable with each other, did they say what they have to say and now can they go on to do business or are they both locked into final positions? Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): Oh, these are certainly not final positions, but there's a lot of jockeying to come. I don't think what Obama said was all that new or all that exceptional, but the political firestorms followed. I think it was also totally predictable. I don't think that there's much opportunity right now for any real negotiations or any real progress on any side. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): I think the president is to be commended for - he recognizes how important this is that what we've got right now is simply unsustainable. And that if something isn't resolved, we're more likely to see an explosion than the kind of the continuing of the status quo. Whether that's Palestinian kind of a peaceful uprising, whether it's renewed violence, it's impossible to say. But it's almost impossible to see how this can be sustained, given what's happening in the rest of the region. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): But that said, nobody knows how to move forward and that's what makes it so difficult. SCOTT SIMON, host: I wonder with your fine eye what you noticed in the speech that may have escaped the rest of us. Because, of course, much of our concentration in the wake of the president's remarks has been devoted to Israel and the statement about two societies and the 1967 borders. What else was there? Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): Well, I think the main purpose of the speech was that President Obama wanted to lay out the recognition that the region is changing and that that's not because of the United States. We're not driving it. We're not making it. But things are changing. The people are much more mobilized, they're engaged. Sometimes they're bringing down governments, sometimes they're failing to do so. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): And what Obama was trying to do was to step back from here's Syria and it's bloody; here's Libya and there's a war; something happened in Egypt, and give a broader vision of where the United States fits in this changing region. And that's where I think the Israel part fits in, which is to say that I think many people have grown very comfortable with the status quo, which is unpleasant but basically seen to be relatively stable. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): And what he was trying to say is that we've looked around the entire region and what looks like it's stable actually isn't. And basically is trying to kick both sides and say we've got to move or else everything's going to fall apart and things can be a lot worse than they are right now. SCOTT SIMON, host: Did he catch the wave of history, if you please, with that speech, because there was criticism in the region that he certainly didn't say much about Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): Well, he did talk about Bahrain, and I think that that pleased many activists who didn't expect him to say that. But you're right, he didn't talk about Saudi Arabia. And many people noticed, for example, that he had a long stretch of discussion on women in the region but didn't mention Saudi Arabia, which is quite glaring. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): I actually think that if he had given this speech when they originally wanted to give it, shortly after the fall of President Mubarak and before things turned bloody in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Bahrain, then I think you would have had more of that feel of catching the wave of history. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): The feel that it had now was of catching your breath and trying to make sense of what's been happening in this, you know, this crazy rush of events and trying to make sense, both for themselves and for the world and for the American people of what we're doing, why we're doing it and I think crucially why it matters to the American people. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): And I think it goes back to this notion of the United States has real interest in the region. It has real values at stake and this wasn't a choice that Obama made to throw the region into unrest. But it's something which now he has to respond to. And simply going back to the old ways isn't going to cut it. SCOTT SIMON, host: Marc, always a pleasure. Thanks very much for being with us. Mr. MARC LYNCH (Director, Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University): Thanks, Scott. SCOTT SIMON, host: Marc Lynch is the director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. His blog about the Middle East, Abu Aardvark, is on ForeignPolicy.com. Thanks again.

President Obama's speech on Middle East issues earlier this week drew a lukewarm response from Israel; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly rejected some of the president's proposals. Is there any common ground left on which the U.S. and Israel can build a dialogue? Host Scott Simon speaks with Dr. Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies and of the Project on Middle East Political Science at George Washington University.

Die Rede von Präsident Obama zu Themen im Nahen Osten Anfang dieser Woche stieß auf eine lauwarme Reaktion Israels; Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanjahu wies einige Vorschläge des Präsidenten schnell zurück. Gibt es noch eine gemeinsame Basis, auf der die USA und Israel einen Dialog aufbauen können? Moderator Scott Simon spricht mit Dr. Marc Lynch, Direktor des Instituts for Nahost-Studien und des Projekts im Mittleren Osten Politikwissenschaft an der George Washington Universität.

奥巴马总统本周早些时候就中东问题发表的讲话引起了以色列不冷不热的反应；以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡很快就否决了奥巴马的一些提议。美国和以色列还有什么共同点可以建立对话吗？主持人斯科特·西蒙采访了马克·林奇博士，他是乔治·华盛顿大学中东研究所和中东政治科学项目的主任。

RENEE MONTAGNE, host: NPR Business News starts with a gloomy week on Broadway. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Talks between the producers' league and the stagehands' union broke off late last night. They had spent all day Saturday and Sunday talking when producers told the union that its offer wasn't, quote, "good enough." No further talks had been scheduled, so the League of American Theaters and Producers announced it's canceling this week's performances. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Big hits like "The Lion King" and "Chicago" are among the more than two dozen shows that won't go on. Shutting the shows down in what is traditionally one of Broadway's best weeks will cost Broadway and New York millions.

Labor problems prompt the League of American Theaters and Producers to cancel Broadway performances during the traditionally profitable Thanksgiving week. Talks on Saturday and Sunday with the stagehands' union ended without agreement — and with no schedule for more negotiations.

Arbeitsprobleme veranlassen die Liga der amerikanischen Theater und Produzenten, Broadway-Aufführungen während der traditionell profitablen Thanksgiving-Woche abzusagen. Die Gespräche am Samstag und Sonntag mit der Bühnenarbeitergewerkschaft endeten ohne Einigung – und ohne Zeitplan für weitere Verhandlungen.

劳工问题促使美国剧院和制片人联盟在原本有利可图的感恩节周取消百老汇演出。周六和周日与舞台管理工会的谈判没有达成协议，也没有安排继续谈判。

Senator JEFF SESSIONS (Republican, Alabama): You did well this morning. And Judge SAMUEL ALITO (US Supreme Court Nominee): Thank you very much. That was a great honor. Senator JEFF SESSIONS (Republican, Alabama): And you've had the kind of unique experience, it's put you right there. You're ready for the job. Judge SAMUEL ALITO (US Supreme Court Nominee): Thank you, Senator. WELNA: Sessions is on the Judiciary Committee that's to hold hearings on Alito's nomination. Both he and Alito were US attorneys, and Sessions says Alito was one of the most popular. Senator JEFF SESSIONS (Republican, Alabama): Everybody just liked him. They knew he had this extraordinary reputation for skill. He'd been the deputy to the solicitor general, arguing 12 cases before the Supreme Court. But he had a way of carrying himself that indicated he didn't have ego problems, that he was a decent person. Senator ORRIN HATCH (Republican, Utah): I think every conservative in America ought to be pretty tickled with this nominee. WELNA: That's Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, another Judiciary panel member. He, too, had nothing but good things to say about Alito. Hatch said although Alito's a conservative, he has no idea of whether he'd vote to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision recognizing a woman's right to abortion. Senator ORRIN HATCH (Republican, Utah): I think it's premature to judge him on the issue of abortion. He happens to believes in the principle of stare decisis. It's not an invalid principle. Nobody believes it should be. WELNA: At a photo op Alito attended with Republican Senate leaders, Majority Leader Frist acknowledged there could be a very tough confirmation process ahead. Senator BILL FRIST (Republican, Tennessee; Majority Leader): There's going to be a lot of positioning from a political standpoint, and I think you've seen it. And it's from some expected voices up on both sides of the aisle. As leadership, we're going to plow through that and we're going to stay above it. And it's going to be tough. People know the climate here in Washington right now is very partisan. WELNA: Asked whether he was apprehensive about setting off a big Senate fight over his nomination, Alito had a bland reply. Judge SAMUEL ALITO (US Supreme Court Nominee): I'm just looking forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. And I will do everything I can to cooperate with them and to discuss my record as a judge and the record of what I've done during the other stages of my legal career. WELNA: Late in the day after meeting with Alito, Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter, who supports abortion rights, said Alito embraced the court ruling that opened the way for the Roe vs. Wade decision on a woman's right to abortion. Senator ARLEN SPECTER (Republican, Pennsylvania; Chairman, Judiciary Committee): He believes there is a right to privacy under the liberty clause of the United States Constitution. And he believes that the rights apply to singles as well as married under the interpretation of Griswold vs. Connecticut, and he says that he accepts Griswold vs. Connecticut as good law. WELNA: For their part, Senate Democrats chided President Bush for not choosing a woman or a minority to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. The Judiciary panel's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy, also cited significant concerns about Alito's record. Senator PATRICK LEAHY (Democrat, Vermont): His opinions from the federal bench demonstrate that he'd go to great lengths to restrict the authority of Congress to enact protective legislation, to protect in the areas of civil rights, consumer protection, the rights of workers, consumers and women. WELNA: Asked whether Democrats might filibuster Alito's nomination, New York Democrat Charles Schumer would not rule that out. Senator CHARLES SCHUMER (Democrat, New York): It's too early to tell. Nothing is on the table, and nothing is off the table. Let's learn more about Judge Scalia. WELNA: Schumer meant to say Judge Alito, but his slip shows how much Democrats view Alito as a soul mate of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of that court's most conservative members. David Welna, NPR News, the Capitol.

President Bush's latest choice for the Supreme Court, the conservative federal judge Samuel Alito, is making Democrats uneasy and unhappy. Concerns are rising that the Alito nomination may lead to a filibuster.

filibuster.

布什总统最近选择了保守派联邦法官塞缪尔·阿利托担任最高法院法官，这使民主党人感到不安和不满。人们越来越担心阿利托的提名可能会导致阻挠议事。

GUY RAZ, host: Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is not among the crowd at the National Governors Association's annual conference this weekend. And he's not the only no show. GUY RAZ, host: NPR's Debbie Elliott did make the scene in Biloxi, Mississippi. And she's with us. GUY RAZ, host: Hi, Debbie. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Hi, Guy. GUY RAZ, host: So, who's there? DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. The interesting part of this conference is who's not here. Only about half of the governors are here, in part, because several of them are back home dealing with some pretty serious budget issues. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Even the chairman of the National Governors Association, Pennsylvania Democrat Ed Rendell is not here. He's back in a fiscal crisis back home. He sent in videotaped remarks to open the meeting today that he couldn't even make the trip. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Neither could California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. As you well know, he is also dealing with a pretty serious budget crisis. GUY RAZ, host: So, Debbie, what are the governors who did make this meeting talking about? I would imagine the economy is at the top of the list. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Certainly it is, Guy. And the meeting comes right on the heels of a study out this week from the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government that indicates state tax revenues have taken their deepest plunge on record. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Today, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin talked a little bit about that. And he warned that collectively states could be facing something like a $200 billion shortfall in the coming years. He called for a correction. Governor JOE MANCHIN (Democrat, West Virginia): We'll have to find the adjustments that need to be made, looking at our past policies, looking at our benefit packages, looking at how we operate our states to be able to live within our means. We understand that, and this is where the rubber hits the road. And governors are CEOs. They make those decisions, and they make them for the best interest, not just today but for future generations. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: And Guy, another big issue here, of course, has been the economic stimulus. Most of the governors say that money has been helpful. Some governors are a little frustrated with the restraints that are put on how they can spend it. No one here however, seems to have an appetite for another infusion of cash from the federal government. GUY RAZ, host: Debbie, this is the first time since the 1930s that Mississippi has hosted this governor's conference and it's in Biloxi, a town devastated by Hurricane Katrina, a symbolic statement there. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Right. I think Governor Haley Barbour really is trying to showoff the progress that's been made here on the Coast. And he welcomed everyone here at a news conference this morning very near the water, overlooking the Mississippi Sound where the hurricane basically came ashore. Governor HALEY BARBOUR (Republican, Mississippi): Virtually everything that you see from here was devastated by Katrina. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Now, while you can still see some of the effects of the storm, there are still slabs where antebellum homes once stood. The governors are being held to places where commerce is back. They're staying at this sprawling resort and casino called the Beau Rivage. Clearly, they're in a place where business is getting back to normal on the Coast. GUY RAZ, host: That's NPR's Debbie Elliott from the National Governors Association in Biloxi, Mississippi. GUY RAZ, host: Debbie, thanks. DEBBIE ELLIOTT: Thanks so much, Guy.

The biggest story at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association isn't who showed up, but who didn't. Guy Raz gets a view of the conference through the eyes of someone who did make it: NPR's Debbie Elliott.

Die größte Geschichte auf der Jahrestagung der National Governors Association ist nicht, wer gekommen ist, sondern wer nicht gekommen ist. Guy Raz wirft einen Blick auf die Konferenz aus der Sicht einer Person, die es geschafft hat: Debbie Elliott von NPR.

在全国州长协会的年度会议上，最大的新闻不是谁来了，而是谁没有来。盖伊·拉兹通过出席会议的人的视角来了解这次会议：美国全国公共广播电台新闻的黛比·埃利奥特报道。

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: It's time for your letters, and first one correction. Yesterday we incorrectly reported that the Archdiocese of Washington asked Georgetown University to withdraw an invitation to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a commencement event. In fact, the archdiocese did not ask the university to withdraw that invitation. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Now your letters. Yesterday, we profiled Joe Ricketts. He's the founder of TD Ameritrade, owner of the Chicago Cubs and a longtime donor to conservative causes. He briefly considered, then decided against, a $10 million ad buy meant to remind voters of President Obama's link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Well, Sharon Spooner(ph) of Oak Park, Illinois, thought we left one thing out of our story. She writes this: Ricketts claims to hate big government spending, yet the first thing he did after buying the Chicago Cubs was to ask for money from the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago and tax breaks to renovate Wrigley Field. He hates government spending except when it's for him. The Cubs broke my heart in 1969, 1984 and especially 2003. I am a lifelong Cubs fan and have gone to countless games throughout the years, but I will never set foot in Wrigley Field again. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: And Spooner goes on to write: Ricketts broke my heart in a way that was even worse than the Cubs bullpen. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Yesterday we marked the death of disco queen Donna Summer, and Milton Kent(ph) of Windsor Mill, Maryland, thought we left something out of that story, too. He writes: While Ms. Summer's contributions to disco can't be ignored, nor should her post-disco work, which included collaborations with such music notables as Quincy Jones, David Geffen and Bruce Springsteen. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Her 1983 song "She Works Hard For the Money" became an anthem for working women all over the United States. Mr. Kent closes by saying: Donna Summer deserved better than just being known for "Hot Stuff." ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: We appreciate your comments, and if you think we're hot stuff or not working hard enough for your money, let us know. Just go to npr.org, and click on contact us.

Melissa Block and Robert Siegel read emails from listeners about Donna Summer and conservative donor Joe Ricketts.

Melissa Block und Robert Siegel lesen E-Mails von Hörern über Donna Summer und den konservativen Spender Joe Ricketts.

梅丽莎·布洛克和罗伯特·西格尔阅读了听众关于唐娜·萨默和保守派捐赠者乔·里基茨的电子邮件。

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: NPR and MORNING EDITION recently spent a lot of time reporting on the U.S.-Mexico border. In the town of Mexicali, or Mexicali, on the border with California, I found a city of deportees - tens of thousands of people who'd been sent out of the U.S. and back to Mexico. The U.S. recently passed the two million - that's two million deportations since President Obama took office. It used to be that shelters along the border were full of people trying to go north. Now, they're full of people being sent south. This place is called the Hotel Emigrante. This guy, who didn't want to give his name, told a story of being deported. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken) UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: They caught him jaywalking in Los Angeles. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken) UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: He took him to the county jail. He was there for a month. Then immigration picked him up and told him you cannot come back into the U.S. for 20 years. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: How long had you lived in the U.S.? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken) UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: Eleven years. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: So, he just got caught trying to cross again. UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: Yes. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: And then they deported him for life, they said? UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: (Foreign language spoken). UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken). KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: What's he going to do? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken) UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: He's going to go back. He's has his daughter there. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: How many kids? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Foreign language spoken) UNIDENTIFIED TRANSLATOR: One daughter, one son. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: This story got us thinking: How did this happen? Why have there be so many deportations? And as one listener asked, is that 2 million number even accurate? We started with Hilda Solis, secretary of labor in Obama's first term. She says when Obama was first elected, people believed comprehensive immigration reform was not far off. HILDA SOLIS: Latinos voted overwhelmingly for him - not just on that issue but yes, it was a primary issue for a lot of people. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: But then it became clear that Republicans and Democrats would not find common ground. Democrats wanted a pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million immigrants in the U.S., Solis says; Republicans wanted enforcement. HILDA SOLIS: We knew that there was going to be difficulty in persuading Republican members of both the Senate and the House to move forward on just a comprehensive immigration reform bill. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: So the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency - or ICE - beefed up border patrols, and expanded a Bush-era program called Secure Communities. The idea was to fingerprint anyone who got picked up by police, then send those prints to the feds. If there was a hit, if someone was here illegally, they could be deported. The program led to charges of profiling; that anyone who looked foreign could be targeted. So,agents were then ordered to focus on so-called high-priority offenders: people who committed serious crimes. But in some jurisdictions, that's not how it worked. Doug Scott is the chief of police in Arlington, Va., just outside D.C. DOUG SCOTT: We have between 8 and 10 percent African-American, about 15 to 16 percent Hispanic, and about 3 percent Asian. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Around 2010, Chief Scott started hearing stories from this community. DOUG SCOTT: People started to disappear from the community who may have been arrested on very low-level crimes. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Things like driving without their lights on, improper use of a calling card. And then before they knew it, they were on the road to deportation. DOUG SCOTT: When they started asking about it, you know, we would answer it by saying no, no, you must be mistaken. We were informed by officials that this program would focus on only the most serious offenders, but yet we were hearing a different story from the community. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Scott says immigrants in his community started to feel like targets, and stopped talking to police. He and his colleagues confronted the feds and... DOUG SCOTT: ICE came in and they basically said, you know, we're not going to apologize for doing our job. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Scott says Arlington tried to opt out of the Secured Communities program. So did other jurisdictions around the country. A few - D.C., the state of California - have managed to opt out. But others, like Arlington, found they couldn't. What did eventually happen is, ICE was forced to clarify the Secured Communities program, which allowed places like Doug Scott's Arlington to decide who would be referred to the feds and who wouldn't. DOUG SCOTT: We finally got a letter from ICE verifying, you know, what would happen and what a community could, in fact, do. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: For Scott, it was a kind of victory yet still, the U.S. is racking up hundreds of thousands of deportations a year. Brian Bennett is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times here in Washington, who covers immigration policy. He says while the number of deportations has gone up, it actually has gone down in certain places. He says that 2 million number is misleading. BRIAN BENNETT: So what I found, when I looked at the numbers, was that two-thirds of them are people being deported from the border area. The actual number of people being deported from the interior of the United States has gone down every year since Obama came to office. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: So when people are calling him the deporter-in-chief and saying he's deporting so many people, you think that's some kind of distortion? BRIAN BENNETT: It gives the impression that immigration agents have been going into homes inside the United States on a more frequent basis, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Essentially, what the Obama administration has done is, they have decided to take more people who are apprehended close to the border, and put them into deportation proceedings. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: The president recently said that immigration officials are supposed to focus on deporting people who have committed serious crimes - you know, people who are considered to be a threat to the community. Is this who's getting deported? BRIAN BENNETT: When you look at the people being deported from the interior of the United States - not from the border regions, but from inside the United States - an increasing percentage of them have serious crimes on their record. When they came into office, the Obama administration officials wanted to do is say, OK, we have a lot of these immigration agents and Border Patrol; how can we focus them in a way that is not indiscriminately deporting people? BRIAN BENNETT: And so they decided, let's try to focus our agents on finding people with long criminal records or with prior deportations. They also decided, let's try to focus our efforts on deporting people who are recently crossing the border and the border region. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: You know, the New York Times recently reported that a vast majority of people being deported are still people who are charged with these minor infractions. I mean, I recently met a guy who was deported after jaywalking. I mean, how is it that this is still happening? BRIAN BENNETT: Some of those people who are brought to the attention of the immigration agents have prior deportations on their record. When they were fingerprinted, their name went into a federal database, and immigration officials were notified. They saw that this person had a prior deportation, and they became a priority for removal. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Right. You're committing some small infraction but it's because you have this previous mark on your record that you could actually get deported? BRIAN BENNETT: That's right. And this is something that's President Obama has asked the new Homeland Security secretary, Jay Johnson, to take a look at the deportation procedures and see if there are ways to make it more humane and to prevent it from separating as many families. And one of the suggestions has been to take prior immigration violations out of the priority category for deportations. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: So, what a lot of pro-immigration reform activists are saying is that, you know, Obama does have the power to do a lot of this. I think for a long time he said, well, you know, Congress isn't enacting immigration reform. There's nothing I can do. How likely do you think it is that we will see some changes in this policy? BRIAN BENNETT: I think it's likely. I think it's likely we'll see some small administrative changes like the one I just mentioned where they decide to slow down or stop the deportations of people with immigration violations on their record and no other criminal violations on their record. It's also possible that the Obama administration will take a look at doing a very expansive program that allows people who are here undocumented to come and apply for a work visa and deferred action for young people who are brought to the United States illegally. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: Brian Bennett from the L.A. Times. Thanks so much. BRIAN BENNETT: Happy to be with you. KELLY MCEVERS, HOST: This is NPR News.

Morning Edition spent a lot of time recently reporting from the U.S.-Mexico border. President Obama has deported 2 million people from the U.S. But many say that number is misleading.

Morning Edition hat in letzter Zeit viel Zeit damit verbracht, von der US-mexikanischen Grenze aus zu berichten. Präsident Obama hat 2 Millionen Menschen aus den USA abgeschoben Aber viele sagen, diese Zahl sei irreführend.

晨报最近花了很多时间在美墨边境报道。奥巴马总统已经从美国驱逐了200万人。但许多人说，这个数字是具有误导性。

ED GORDON, host: Yesterday, a police officer on duty at the perimeter of the Superdome in New Orleans shared his observations with us. He agreed to do the interview with the condition that we didn't use his name. ED GORDON, host: Officer, thanks so much for joining us. First and foremost, I know it's stifling down there. Talk to me about what's going on outside of the Superdome. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Well, people are coming to the Superdome. They know this is an access point as far as getting to Houston. So people are constantly coming to the Superdome. They're wading in water. They're coming on--in boats, kids, mothers. Today I just saw a--maybe a five-year-old carrying a three-month child to the Superdome because he couldn't find his mother. And he know that the buses were leaving to go to Houston, and he didn't want to stay out there by himself. So families are being destroyed. We're witnessing that. I haven't observed any looters. I have not observed anything else outside of the dome, but people are setting buildings on fire. I have witnessed that. Of course, you can hear the helicopters. There's hundreds of helicopters flying around, some picking up people who are still stranded. Some of them are actually flying around observing the perimeter to make sure that the looters are not around. And the rest of them are media helicopters. ED GORDON, host: But as of today, I feel like things are very much in control. The people are finally leaving and they're peaceful with that. But I hope that nothing else changes and these people aren't sent back again, because then I feel--we are over here. We are outnumbered. The Guardsmen are here. The Army are here. We're still outnumbered, because the last thing I heard, there was 30,000 people in--just in the Superdome, and there's definitely not that many National Guardsmen and police over here. So we're trying to keep them peaceful, trying to keep them--let them see that something is being done. And hopefully this time tomorrow, the Superdome will be empty. ED GORDON, host: Give me an idea of how you and your colleagues are faring. It must be remarkably hard to not only try to keep the peace but to look around and see the devastation and try to stay strong for everyone else. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: We're pretty much in the same situation they are. We're stranded, as well. They're not the victims. We all are the victims. The storm came in and we were all in the Superdome, trying to make sure they were fine. It totally demolished the city, including the Superdome. And not only were they stuck in the Superdome, but so were we. But the good thing--and I understand there's been talk about people looting and shooting at the police. I explain to people, that is just mainly 1 percent of the total people that we have here. The majority of them are cooperating. And I commend some of our men, because they put their issues to the side and helped us with women and the children, trying to get them out of the city, because the crowd is so large and the heat is unbearable and the kids are just passing out, and it's--words can't describe it. ED GORDON, host: Officer, give me a sense of what has been the hardest thing for the police to handle on a day-to-day basis. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Well, the people came into the Superdome and once the storm hit and all the electricity went out, soon, you know, the air condition, the water, the toilets, and the people had to lay down and sleep in water that came in from the street. And I pretty much can understand how they feel, because then it became a situation with survival. Then not knowing when are they getting out. They've been told, `You're going to leave tomorrow.' Then tomorrow come and go and they still here. The Superdome is getting much crowder, much crowder every day. People coming in, nobody's allowed to leave. ED GORDON, host: So we've been pretty much busy just trying to get people to calm down and work with us. In the beginning, it was rough, pretty much rough, because families were coming in torn apart. We lost a lot of people because New Orleans, of course, is one of the poorest cities in the nation and one of the hardest-hit areas was one of the poorest spots in New Orleans. And family members don't know where the rest of their family members are and it was pretty much an on-patrol situation. But yet, we managed to gain control. We talked to them. It's pretty much working out well now. ED GORDON, host: Officer, let me ask you this as it relates to the lawlessness you talked about. And I agree, often it gets blown out of proportion, because you see news accounts over and over again. Are you concerned that as days go by, if we do not see the help from FEMA, from the Red Cross, from the National Guard, as promised, that people will lose patience? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Definitely. Of course, you know, New Orleans is a majority blacks city, and there's different areas and suburbs of the city that have, you know, different nationalities, of course. And the people here feel like they are being left behind because of their color. So when you listen to the radio or they hear that food is coming in, National Guard is coming in, state police is coming in, FEMA's coming in, they get a sense of hopeness, but then when they see nothing, it becomes a sense of helplessness. And they tend to, of course, get hostile. And then, being not a police officer but a human, I can pretty much understand why they feel the way they do, because they're in dire need to get out of this situation, get out of this city. Because when they come outside, all they see is water. And more people coming, more people coming, and they know that sooner or later they're going to get to the point where they won't be able to leave. So we're hearing stories that FEMA's here and National Guard is here, food is here, but, of course we're not seeing anything. ED GORDON, host: You talk about the city being a majority black. And, of course, as we cover this, we are trying to tap into the black community as much as we can to get the word out, especially for people who, in fact, have relatives and may not have been able to talk with them. As you hear the day-to-day conversations, do you get the feeling of growing resentment from the black community there that, they, if this had been in Utah or some other city that was a majority white, you would not see the kinds of delays that we're seeing now? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Right. They pretty much feel like they're being met with aggression instead of being met with help. And, like you said earlier, there's nothing that we can present to them--and I don't want to use the word `we.' There's nothing that's being presented to them to show them that, `Hey, we're trying to help you all.' Of course, the buses are here, but it took so long just to get the buses here to get the people out that they feel like everybody else in the city was evacuated. They were the last resort. So they're pretty much upset. And, I mean, like I said, I can feel their anger because my family's gone. I'm the only one here. I have a brother who I can't get in contact with. In my heart, I know he's fine, but I, too, have to take care of my family. I have to take care of myself. But before I can do that, I'm obligated to make sure these people are taken care of. But when I'm hearing conflicting statements because--of course, like that old saying, `There's too many chiefs, not enough Indians.' There's no cooperation between agencies here. One agency is doing this, one agency is doing that, and no one is coming together, trying to come up with a solution of, how can we get these people out of here, get them safe, get them to some water, get them to some food and do it real soon. ED GORDON, host: You beat me to my next question. And I want you to continue that point. But as a person who's out there in the streets, on the beat, dealing with people day to day, are you feeling that--not only interdepartmentally, but do you feel, just from the New Orleans Police Department, that you're getting enough guidance and enough leadership in how to deal with folks? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Well, right now we're under martial law, and I guess we no longer have leadership. The National Guard has come in, and so have other agencies, and taken over. Our department, believe it or not, is separated from--last I heard, we had officers, as of today, still stuck at home on their roofs, because they were told to go home and report back to work at 7:00 that morning when the storm hit the city at 5:00 that morning. ED GORDON, host: What about the morale of the police department, in general, the buddies of yours that you're working with on a day-to-day basis? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: We're pretty much taking care of each other. We hear the rumors about the looting and the shooting. We have our guards up, but we also are surviving ourselves. We're here in our police vehicles and we don't have access to gas, so we're pretty much living out of our cars. And sooner of later, we're going to be living out on the street. I guess you could say that. But we realize we are all alone. We're here by ourself. So we got to stick together. ED GORDON, host: Where have you been patrolling? Have you been patrolling at the Superdome? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Right. We're stuck at the Superdome. We cannot get out of New Orleans. ED GORDON, host: Now we have been hearing about violence in the Superdome. How much of that report is real and how--is it sporadic violence? Is it ongoing violence? Is it just the nature of people being together and it's just hot? Talk to me. Describe the violence there for me. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Well, there's been reports of incidents in the Superdome as far as the shootings. We had an isolated incident yesterday where a Guardsman was shot. But from my understanding, the situation was--it was isolated. I don't think it was anything that a person just pulled out a gun and started shooting. We had rumors of rapes. Of course, there are people dying. I'm not directly in the Superdome, so I couldn't confirm the rumors, but there are sporadic acts of violence. ED GORDON, host: Where are you, outside the--are you outside the Superdome? ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Well, right now, I'm outside the Superdome. We do go into the dome, but the incidents are taking place, like I said, sporadically. So, unfortunately, they're taking place when I'm not there--when I'm not in there, actually. ED GORDON, host: Yeah. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: But we manage to get it under control. I can actually say again, the community has helped us. They understand that if that 1 percent is allowed to wreak havoc on everybody else, it will make it hard on themselves. So they are standing up and turning people out, say--telling us, you know, things we need to know, and they're helping us out a lot. Because, like I say, these people are trying to get out of here. ED GORDON, host: Well, Officer, just know that--and I know sometimes it isn't always comforting--but you got a lot of folks praying for you. And for those of us outside who can only send money and send help by means of getting these stories out... ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: Ah, Ed, we thank you all a lot. Trust me. Some things you're not going to notice. We understand we're going to be stuck here to do a recovery mission, which is going to be the hardest part. Because I myself have a family, and to go in a home and find babies and other people drowned, that's going to be the hardest part of the job. But hopefully--I wish I'll go into a house and couldn't find anyone. And what--the chance of that happening is very slim, because to this day, we don't know what the death toll is, but we know it is extremely high. ED GORDON, host: Well, again, we'll say a prayer for you. And you hang in there, and I hope you're reunited with your family real soon. ED GORDON, host: Unidentified Police Officer: OK. I thank you much, man. Thank you much. ED GORDON, host: Again, that was a story from one New Orleans police officer. ED GORDON, host: This is NPR News.

Ed Gordon talks with a New Orleans police officer, assigned to duty at the Superdome the night of the storm and now trapped. The officer, who wished to remain anonymous, describes deteriorating conditions inside the city's "shelter of last resort" — and a feeling among the refugees that the lax response is racially motivated.

Ed Gordon spricht mit einem Polizeibeamten aus New Orleans, der in der Nacht des Sturms im Superdome Dienst hatte und nun eingeschlossen ist. Der Beamte, der anonym bleiben möchte, beschreibt die sich verschlechternden Bedingungen in der \"letzten Zuflucht\" der Stadt und das Gefühl unter den Flüchtlingen, dass die lasche Reaktion rassistisch motiviert ist.

帕特尼·史渥普与新奥尔良的一名警官进行了交谈，这名警官在风暴当晚被派到超级穹顶大体育馆执行任务，现在被困在了这里。这位不愿透露姓名的警官描述了这座城市作为“最后避难所”的日益恶化的条件。据该警官称，难民们都认为，应对松懈是因为种族方面的原因。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: From NPR West and Slate magazine online, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Coming up, inside the White House press room, a delicate dance around the president's friend and adviser Karl Rove. ALEX CHADWICK, host: First, the lead, to Britain, where politicians, police and community leaders are dealing with revelations that at least three of the four prime suspects in last week's London bombings were British-born Muslims of Pakistani origin. They came from northern England in and around the city of Leeds, where the BBC has been talking to locals. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Unidentified Woman #1: Just shocked. I'm still in shock at the moment. Most of the area is. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Unidentified Woman #2: It's unbelievable, really. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Unidentified Woman #1: It's unbelievable. I'm still in shock. I don't what to believe in, to be honest. ALEX CHADWICK, host: The BBC's Mark Saxby joins us now from the Burley neighborhood in Leeds, where police conducted raids yesterday. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mark Saxby, what can you tell us about these men, these prime suspects? Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Well, three men have been identified as being the bombers who struck in London last Thursday. One of them's called Shahzad Tanweer. He's 23, was born in Branston, lived all his life in the Beeston area of Leeds. His father was born in Pakistan and owns a fish-and-chips shop. And the second one was a 19-year-old. His name's Hasib Hussain, and it was his disappearance on the day of the attacks which provided one of the vital clues which led police to Leeds. He was reported missing by his mother at about 10:00 at night on Thursday. The third man is called Mohammed Sadique Khan. Now he comes from Dewsbury, a town outside Leeds. He's a 30-year-old man of Pakistani origin. He was married to a lady called Hasena(ph) and they had a baby girl approximately around eight months old. ALEX CHADWICK, host: And what about the fourth suspect? Any word on him? Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Well, all we know about the fourth suspect so far is that he also comes from the same area, from West Yorkshire, but in terms of a name and who he is so far, we don't know that information yet. There are talk of three of these bombers being British-born and one of them is possibly not British-born. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Have you been able to speak to any of the families of these suspects? Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Yes. We've been speaking to the uncle of Shahzad Tanweer, the 23-year-old. His uncle, Bashir Amed, told us about his nephew and said that he'd been religious for some time, but he'd never talked about paradise, that he thought he was going to London last Thursday for some religious event and they thought he'd been a victim in the terrorist attack. Apparently all say he went to Pakistan for a period of time. He'd also been to Afghanistan, but he thought that when he went to Pakistan, it was just to improve his reading of the Koran. And he just says they're in total shock. The family's in total shock. And he said, `We've lost everything.' ALEX CHADWICK, host: How about these raids yesterday that police carried out? They turned up some high-quality explosives. Do you have more on that? Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Well, they went to four--in fact, they had six raids altogether. They went to four houses. The first house was in an area of Leeds called Beeston, just a normal terrace, three floors with some conifers in front, window baskets. It looks--totally ordinary house. And then later on in the morning about 11:30 yesterday morning, police came to the area which I'm in now in Burley and they cordoned off a house here, carried out a controlled explosion. This area here is where they think the bombs were made. ALEX CHADWICK, host: When you say this is an ordinary neighborhood, is it socially isolated from the rest of Leeds, or are people just leading completely ordinary lives here and it turns out there's a bomb factory next door? Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Well, Leeds is a very multicultural city where Muslims and Hindus and British-born people all live together. And so they're very surprised that the terrorists have come from their areas of Leeds. ALEX CHADWICK, host: I wonder if they aren't concerned, that is that maybe there's going to be some kind of backlash directed against their neighborhood. Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): They were very concerned about backlash. They were very concerned that Muslims might be attacked. There have been a number of attacks on mosques around Britain, already one in the neighboring city of Bradford and one in Leeds itself where just minor attacks, but there are fears that this could lead to more, especially now we know that these men who committed the crimes in London were suicide bombers. ALEX CHADWICK, host: The BBC's Mark Saxby speaking with us from Leeds. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Mark, thank you. Mr. MARK SAXBY (BBC): Thank you.

British police in the northern English town of Leeds discovered a large cache of explosives in an abandoned house — evidence that may be linked to last week's deadly transit bombings in London. Alex Chadwick speaks with BBC reporter Mark Saxby about what one local Member of Parliament is calling a "bomb factory."

Die britische Polizei in der nordenglischen Stadt Leeds hat in einem verlassenen Haus ein großes Lager mit Sprengstoff entdeckt - ein Beweis, der mit den tödlichen Bombenanschlägen in London in der vergangenen Woche in Verbindung gebracht werden könnte. Alex Chadwick spricht mit BBC-Reporter Mark Saxby über das, was ein örtlicher Parlamentsabgeordneter als "Bombenfabrik" bezeichnet.

英国警方在英国北部城市利兹的一处废弃房屋中发现了大量隐藏的爆炸物——这些证物可能与上周伦敦发生的交通爆炸案有关。亚历克斯·查德威克与BBC记者马克·萨克斯比就一名当地议员所说的“炸弹工厂”进行了讨论。

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: The death toll from the grounding of a cruise ship off the Italian coast rose to 11 today. Twenty-four people are still missing after Friday's shipwreck. As rescue efforts continued, the website of an Italian daily carried the dramatic audio of what it said were radio exchanges between the captain and the Coast Guard. And the captain's lawyer said today that his client is now under house arrest. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: NPR's Sylvia Poggioli reports. SYLVIA POGGIOLI BYLINE: At the preliminary hearing today, Captain Francesco Schettino denied all wrongdoing. He insisted his actions after the luxury cruise ship collided with a reef off the island of Giglio helped save hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives. SYLVIA POGGIOLI BYLINE: Schettino was arrested Saturday on suspicion of multiple manslaughter, shipwreck, and abandoning ship when there were thousands of people still to be evacuated. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The captain's position appeared further undermined by the release of audio of radio exchanges after the collision. The most shocking conversation is between Schettino and Livorno Coast Guard Commander Gregorio De Falco. De Falco orders the captain to return onboard. GREGORIO DE FALCO: (Through Translator) You've abandoned ship. I'm in charge now. Go back and board and report to me how many passengers there are and what they need. Tell me if there are children, women or people in need of assistance and you tell me exactly how many they are. Is that clear? SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The Coast Guard was first alerted by various Italian police departments. They had received calls from Italian passengers terrified by a big bang and violent impact that blew out power throughout the floating palace. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: When first contacted by the Coast Guard, Captain Schettino said, there's nothing to worry about. We just have a technical problem with the electrical system. Pressed by officers, Schettino finally issued the May Day distress call a full hour after the collision. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: As chaos and panic broke out as the massive ship started tilting sideways, many passengers started jumping overboard. In their exchange, Commander De Falco becomes increasingly enraged with the captain. GREGORIO DE FALCO: (Through Translator) Come on. There are already dead bodies. FRANCESCO SCHETTINO: (Through Translator) How many bodies? GREGORIO DE FALCO: (Through Translator) I don't know. I know of one body, at least. You're the one who should tell me how many bodies there are. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The recording is full of the background noise of confusion, radio static, people shouting. Someone can be heard saying the word, Titanic. Throughout the conversation, Captain Schettino mostly mumbles, gives vague answers and makes contradictory statements. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Infuriated, the Coast Guard Commander raises the stakes. GREGORIO DE FALCO: (Through Translator) Listen, Schettino. Perhaps you saved yourself from the sea, but I'll make you look very bad. I will make you pay for this. Go back onboard. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The captain then objects. FRANCESCO SCHETTINO: (Through Translator) You don't understand. It's dark here. Can't see anything. GREGORIO DE FALCO: (Through Translator) What's this? You want to go home, Schettino? It's dark and you want to go home? Go to the bow of the ship where the ladder is and tell me what needs to be done, how many people there are and what they need - now. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: At one point, Schettino can be heard agreeing to go back onboard, but until now, there's no indication that he did so. While investigations continue, rescue workers are racing against time and salvage experts against weather forecasts. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: A 30-person team of a Dutch salvage company that will siphon off the ship's 500,000 gallons of fuel is onsite with equipment. They're ready to start operating tomorrow and predict the entire job will take at least a few weeks. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The pristine waters around Giglio have been calm for days, but local sailors warn against the approaching (unintelligible), the northwesterly wind that can churn up waves three to five meters high. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Sylvia Poggioli, NPR News, Rome.

Italian media have released the transcripts of conversations between the coast guard and the captain of the cruise ship that ran aground off the Tuscan coast. The coast guard pleads with the captain to return to his vessel and evacuate the passengers. Meanwhile, recovery workers have found five more bodies.

Italienische Medien haben die Abschriften von Gesprächen zwischen der Küstenwache und dem Kapitän des vor der toskanischen Küste auf Grund gelaufenen Kreuzfahrtschiffs veröffentlicht. Die Küstenwache appelliert an den Kapitän, zu seinem Schiff zurückzukehren und die Passagiere zu evakuieren. Inzwischen haben die Bergungsarbeiter fünf weitere Leichen gefunden.

意大利媒体公布了海岸警卫队与在托斯卡纳海岸搁浅的游轮船长之间的对话记录。海岸警卫队恳求船长回到他的船上疏散乘客。与此同时，救援人员又发现了五具尸体。

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Of the 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., nearly two-thirds are of Mexican origin. The second largest group - accounting for about 9 percent - are the nearly five million Puerto Ricans who live in the 50 states and the District of Columbia - that is, not on the island of Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. The island has been a U.S. territory since the Spanish-American War. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Well, on Election Day, Puerto Rico held a vote on the island's status, and although some people dispute the meaning of the result, the winning option was statehood. Joining us now to talk about this is a statehood advocate, resident commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, who is also Puerto Rico's non-voting member of Congress. He caucuses with the Democratic Party. Welcome. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: Thank you. Thank you for having me here, Robert. I'll be glad to expand on what happened in Puerto Rico on November 6th. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Well, let's begin with the rather controversial result. There were two questions on the ballot. First: Should the current territorial status continue? Fifty-four percent said no. And the second question was: If not, what should be the status? And of three choices offered - independence, a sovereign, free associated state or statehood - statehood got 61 percent of the vote. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Some people say, though, so many people didn't vote on question number two, it really doesn't say that much. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: Yes. But let's go step by step. The first question was pretty clear, basically whether Puerto Rican should remain the way it is, a territory. And 54 percent of the voters said no. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: But just to pursue the result one more time, about a quarter of the people who voted on question number one didn't vote on question number two. Some people said they didn't even know they could vote, or that it made any sense to vote on question number two if they supported the status quo. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: It was pretty clear in terms of the public discourse. And there was a lot of informative ads telling voters that these were two questions, separate questions, and that regardless of the answer to the first question, they should make a choice. So that's where we are. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Right. All right, that's where we are. So we have a result. We have an election that's taken place, a referendum. President Obama has said - and I'm quoting now - "When the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you." The Republican platform of 2012 said that party supports the right of U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: But it then speaks of that happening by means of a general right of referendum, or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. Does that mean a different kind of election than the one you just held in Puerto Rico? RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: The government of Puerto Rico has every right to hold a plebiscite, to consult the people of Puerto Rico regarding their wishes. But the truth is that for a change in the status of Puerto Rico to happen, you need both Congress and Puerto Rico agreeing to it. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Let me ask you a couple of questions about statehood. The benefits of statehood may be self-evident. On the other hand, Puerto Rico enjoys a very unusual status. Puerto Ricans don't pay federal income tax, I understand it. You have your own Olympic team and, you know, your own baseball team in the World Baseball Classic, and you also use Spanish as an official language. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: This makes you remarkably different from the other states. Would Puerto Ricans be willing to give up those privileges of the current situation in order to become a state? RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: Well, we would have to see if Congress imposes terms and conditions on the admission of Puerto Rico as a state. There are now over 50 million Hispanics in America. Spanish is the predominant language in many areas of the country. Now, Puerto Rico will get a lot of additional federal assistance, but at the same time, corporations and wealthy taxpayers on the island would pay federal income taxes. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: Right now, we pay federal payroll taxes - Social Security, Medicare. But close to half of the households in the U.S. mainland do not owe federal income taxes. So in the case of Puerto Rico, right now, at least eight out of 10 taxpayers wouldn't be paying federal taxes, anyway. I believe in the long run, this would be a win-win for both the U.S. and Puerto Rico. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: All property values would increase, like it happened in Hawaii and Alaska. The economic growth in the island would also increase like it happened in Hawaii after Hawaii became a state. So that would offset any kind of impact that federal income taxes could have. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: As you know, the smart money in Washington, and certainly on the world's editorial pages, is against the prospects of Puerto Rico becoming a state. People note that unlike Alaska or Hawaii, Puerto Rico would not enter with just one seat in Congress. It would have a delegation about as big as that of Connecticut or Oregon's. Lots of people look at Puerto Rican voting in the States and say they're all going to be Democrats, and the Republicans are not going to admit that many new Democrats to the Congress. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: They don't know Puerto Rico that well. Puerto Rico is predominantly Catholic but a lot of evangelical Christians in Puerto Rico right now. It is conservative on social issues. Pretty much this is like a middle-of-the-road type terrain. Puerto Rico should not continue to have the current status which is colonial in nature if the people of Puerto Rico - and on top of it, American citizens - are telling the world we don't want it anymore. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Well, Representative Pierluisi, thank you very much for talking with us. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI: Thank you. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Pedro Pierluisi is the resident commissioner and nonvoting member of Congress from Puerto Rico.

Robert Siegel talks with Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's resident commissioner in Washington, D.C., about support swelling on the island for U.S. statehood.

Robert Siegel spricht mit Pedro Pierluisi, dem Kommissar von Puerto Rico in Washington, DC, über die wachsende Unterstützung der Insel für die US-Staatschaft.

罗伯特·西格尔与波多黎各驻华盛顿特区常驻专员佩德罗·皮尔路易西讨论了支持波多黎各成为美国一州的问题。

STEVE INSKEEP, host: This is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And I'm Renee Montagne. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito says he would keep an open mind as a justice on the issue of abortion. Samuel Alito is answering questions at this hour from the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's the second day of his confirmation hearings. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: NINA TOTENBERG reporting: RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Today's focus is on Alito's already stated views on abortion, presidential power, affirmative action, separation of church and state and a wide variety of other subjects. In each of these areas, Alito's previously expressed views, whether as a judge or when he served in the Reagan administration, are quite different and a great deal more conservative than those of the justice he's been nominated to replace, Sandra Day O'Connor. Yesterday in an opening statement, Alito introduced himself to the committee and the nation by talking about his hard-working parents; his mother, a teacher and principal, and his father, the head of the non-partisan New Jersey state legislative research service, and how they formed his values. He was raised, he said, in an neighborhood where few of the adults had a college education, and when he went to Princeton, it was just 12 miles down the road, but a whole world away. It was the late 1960s and early '70s, he said, and the campus was in turmoil. Judge SAMUEL ALITO (Supreme Court Nominee): I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly, and I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community. TOTENBERG: It was a sotto voce acknowledgement of the conservative side of the divide Alito occupied in the early days of the culture wars. He went on to serve in the Reagan administration, advancing a conservative agenda, but he seemed to suggest things changed when he became a judge in 1990. Judge SAMUEL ALITO (Supreme Court Nominee): When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney, and that was a big change in role. The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand, but a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case, and a judge certainly doesn't have a client. The judge's only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. TOTENBERG: Democrats were clear, though, that they weren't accepting anyone's blanket assurances about the nominee. Senator Patrick Leahy. Senator PATRICK LEAHY (Democrat, Vermont): Supreme Court nominations should not be conducted through a series of winks and nods designed to reassure a small faction of our population, while leaving the American people in the dark. TOTENBERG: Indeed, some Democrats were openly skeptical about Alito's claim to having no agenda. Senator Charles Schumer said he intends to press the nominee about his record, and he expects answers. Senator CHARLES SCHUMER (Democrat, New York): The logic of the mantra repeated by John Roberts at his hearing that one could not speak on a subject because the issue was likely to come before him quickly vanishes when the nominee has a written record, as you do, on so many subjects. Even under the so-called Ginsburg precedent, which was endorsed by Judge Roberts, Republican senators, the White House, you have an obligation to answer questions on topics that you have written about. TOTENBERG: On abortion, for instance, Alito wrote in 1985 that, in his view, the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Said Schumer, `You've already given a prejudgment on a question likely to come before the court, so I submit you cannot use that as a basis for not answering.' But Republican Lindsey Graham noted that an answer that will please the Democrats will alienate some Republicans. Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina): Millions of unborn children have been sent to certain death because of what judges have done. It's a two-sided argument. It's an emotional event in our society. TOTENBERG: And most Republicans, like John Cornyn, urged the nominee, one way or another, to avoid answering substantive questions. Senator JOHN CORNYN (Republican, Texas): What I want to also make sure of is that we don't hold you to a double standard, that we don't expect of you answers to questions that Justice Ginsburg and others declined to answer in the interest of the independence of the judiciary and in the interest of observing the canons of judicial ethics. TOTENBERG: Democrats said yesterday they want to make sure that Alito falls within the judicial mainstream, prompting Republican Lindsey Graham to note that the Republicans won the national election in 2004. Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina): I expect that most all of us, if not all of us, will vote for you. And I would argue that we present from the center line to the right ditch in our party, and if all of us vote for you, you've got to be pretty mainstream. TOTENBERG: Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And you can hear a live audio stream of the Alito hearings at npr.org.

Senators begin questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Tuesday. Senators have outlined the issues they planned to raise — abortion, executive power and civil rights. Alito said he had no ideological agenda but would judge each case according to the law. Judge Samuel Alito takes an oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.

Die Senatoren beginnen am Dienstag mit der Befragung des Kandidaten des Obersten Gerichtshofs, Samuel Alito. Senatoren haben die Themen skizziert, die sie ansprechen wollten – Abtreibung, Exekutivgewalt und Bürgerrechte. Alito sagte, er habe keine ideologische Agenda, sondern würde jeden Fall nach dem Gesetz beurteilen. Richter Samuel Alito legt am Montag vor dem Justizausschuss des Senats einen Eid ab.

参议员星期二开始对最高法院法官候选人塞缪尔.阿利托进行质询。参议员概述了他们计划提出的问题——堕胎、行政权力和公民权利。阿利托说，他没有意识形态的议程，但将根据法律判决每一个案件。星期一,法官塞缪尔阿利托在参议院司法委员会前宣誓。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: A warning to listeners - this next story may induce nausea in some sports fans outside Boston. As the Bruins and the St. Louis Blues face off tonight in a Stanley Cup Final, Boston is also vying to become the first city in nearly a century to hold three major sports titles at the same time. The Red Sox and the Patriots, you may recall, are already reigning champs. As NPR's Tovia Smith reports, the prospect of a third title is fueling fans' already-outsized egos in Boston and fueling eye-rolls elsewhere. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: It's almost hard now to remember Boston fans as those long-suffering lovable losers, like 49-year-old Adam Weitzman, who's endured endless seasons of traumatizing losses and the Red Sox's 86-year Curse of the Bambino. ADAM WEITZMAN: You know, it's hard to root and lose all the time; it really is, you know? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yeah, I pity them. ADAM WEITZMAN: (Laughter). UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: But also, like, you know... TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: For 17-year-old Mark Weitzman, being a Boston fan now is a whole new ballgame. ADAM WEITZMAN: Oh, yeah. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Cheering the B's from their basement, Dad and Mom watch on the edge of their seats when the Bruins start trailing, but Mark kicks back on the couch with the confidence and even cockiness of a guy whose short life has spanned six Super Bowls, four World Series, one NBA championship and one Stanley Cup so far. ADAM WEITZMAN: There's time on the clock; we can score. You know, last game they won 7 to 2. ADAM WEITZMAN: There we go. ADAM WEITZMAN: Oh, that was a good hit. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Such is the new normal for Bostonians born in this giddy era of 12 championships in 17 years. Mark readily admits that he's... ADAM WEITZMAN: Spoiled, yes. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Even entitled. Boston fans actually griped this year when their Celtics only got to the NBA semifinals. And in what may be the ultimate humble brag, Mark says the thrill of victory is actually now starting to wear thin. ADAM WEITZMAN: And now it's just like - it's pretty good. ADAM WEITZMAN: (Laughter). TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Fan fatigue is less an issue with older Bostonians who have lived feast and famine and still savor every win. JIM HOLZMAN: That's like, is there too much chocolate cake? I mean, no, I don't think so. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Jim Holzman is CEO of Ace Ticket and one of those Boston fans milking it. He's been buying billboards between titles faux-bemoaning such a long drought. One of them says... JIM HOLZMAN: Go Bruins; there's four-month-old Bostonians who have never seen a championship (laughter). TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: That kind of gloating plus the endless championship parades in New Ringland or Title Town, as Boston fans like to say, is what makes them so insufferable to so many others. TED BERG: It still feels like there's this, like, well, now, see? See? See? Like, they still need to rub it in your face that they're finally winning. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: USA Today sports writer Ted Berg, a lifelong New York fan, wrote a column ranking Boston fans the nation's most hateable. TED BERG: It's that chip on the shoulder. It's just that unnecessary attitude - you know, it's not we won; it's we beat you. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: He thinks Boston still suffers from a deep-seated inferiority complex, as does Yoni Kadden, a diehard New York fan who's suffering his own kind of curse now living in Boston where fans will chant Yankees suck even at a hockey game. YONI KADDEN: What is wrong with these people? TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: But what really gets under Kadden's skin are those Boston T-shirts boasting they hate us 'cause they ain't us. YONI KADDEN: No, that's not why we hate you, by the way; no, we hate you because you're obnoxious. TOVIA SMITH, BYLINE: Boston fans say, don't bet on an attitude adjustment anytime soon. Fans have gone all in hoping Boston wins not only the Stanley Cup but also a place in the record books for the winningest year and the winningest streak of any city in modern sports history. Tovia Smith, NPR News, Title Town. I mean Boston.

The Boston Bruins are in the Stanley Cup finals. If they win, it would be the third major sports championship for the city of Boston in a year's time.

Die Boston Bruins stehen im Finale des Stanley Cups. Wenn sie gewinnen, wäre es die dritte große Sportmeisterschaft für die Stadt Boston innerhalb eines Jahres.

波士顿棕熊队进入了斯坦利杯决赛。如果他们获胜，这将是波士顿市在一年时间内获得的第三个大型体育赛事冠军。

GUY RAZ, HOST: It's WEEKENDS on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Guy Raz. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We'll win Virginia again. We'll finish what we started. MITT ROMNEY: We're going to get America back and keep it so strong that the world is going to wonder at the great things we've achieved. Thank you... GUY RAZ, HOST: President Obama and Mitt Romney both campaigning in Virginia yesterday. New tracking polls out today show a post-debate bounce for Romney, who has closed the gap in Virginia and Ohio. GUY RAZ, HOST: James Fallows at The Atlantic joins, as he does most Saturdays, now for a look beyond the headlines. Jim, good Saturday to you. JAMES FALLOWS: Hello, Guy. GUY RAZ, HOST: Let's start with the NPR third-party debate that we just hosted. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein both offering clear alternatives to President Obama and Mitt Romney. I wonder, Jim, if Wednesday's debate might have been a bit livelier with those two up on stage. JAMES FALLOWS: Oh, it sure would have been, and I think most people would have liked to have heard that range of proposals, whether it was critique of the permanent war policy in the United States or climate change emphasis or whatever. So, yes, I think most people would like to hear that. And technically, it might happen before the last 12 years or so. The debate commission has said if a third-party candidate gets to 15 percent in national opinion polls, then they can join the debates as Ross Perot did 20 years ago. JAMES FALLOWS: Realistically, that's a very high barrier for a third-party candidate to meet. And also, realistically, the truth is the two major parties don't want to have the attention divided this way. One of the reasons why President Jimmy Carter, for whom I once worked, had only one debate with Ronald Reagan is that Carter simply refused to have a debate that included John Anderson, who was the third-party candidate in that era. GUY RAZ, HOST: Given that sort of a narrowness of the, you know, the views, the absence of fact-checking, I mean, this sort of canned nature of a lot of the responses, what value do the debates really have? JAMES FALLOWS: From any platonic sense, you'd have to be pretty depressed with this ritual, and yet I think it actually is good for America. For one thing, it gets people's attention. Usually, during the entire course of four years, the public affairs event that gets the biggest American audience is the debates, especially the first one, even more than an inauguration, more than the conventions. JAMES FALLOWS: And even the people aren't really being informed about the details of this or that policy, they do have some sense of the candidates, what they're like as people, how they react under stress. So I think that they are an imperfect vessel for public engagement. GUY RAZ, HOST: Now, Jim, lots of pundits, even political scientists have been saying, you know, these debates don't matter. And this one will not matter. But then you look at the new tracking polls out today, taken after the debate. They show a significant bounce for Mitt Romney. So I wonder if those political scientists are wrong. JAMES FALLOWS: I certainly think they are. And certainly, Governor Romney's performance was so much stronger and more focused and more engaged than the president's was this past week - it's no surprise if he is coming back. I'm sure from a political science point of view, it would be hard to prove that any one thing changed the presidential election because so many things go into them. JAMES FALLOWS: But it just - time and again, over the years, you see these shifts in momentum and attention and sense of confidence and sense of support for one candidate or another based on the results of a debate. I think we're seeing that right now. GUY RAZ, HOST: The narrative this week was a Romney comeback because he had a tough two or three weeks with a lot of bad media coverage. But then yesterday, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since January 2009, which, of course, is good news for the president. But I wonder, you know, whether these shifts in narratives ultimately matter at all. JAMES FALLOWS: Well, I think that they do have an effect. I mean, probably, most voters have already made up their minds and did months ago about how they were going to vote in this election. They're weighing their own economic prospects. They're weighing war and peace around the world. They're weighing their sort of traditional loyalties to parties. They're weighing social issues too. JAMES FALLOWS: But in this final month of an election, people decide whether or not they're going to vote, whether they're going to try to enlist other people. So I think that almost day-by-day, for the month that's left, we're going to see changes in this narrative that will matter and should matter. GUY RAZ, HOST: That's James Fallows. He's a national correspondent for The Atlantic. You can find his blog at jamesfallows.theatlantic.com. Jim, thanks so much. JAMES FALLOWS: Thank you, Guy.

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney squared off in their first debate this week. Some pundits say the debates don't really matter in the final outcome of the election, and yet polls show Romney got a big bounce following his performance. Host Guy Raz talks to Jim Fallows, of The Atlantic, about what, if any, effect debates may have on undecided voters.

Präsident Barack Obama und der republikanische Herausforderer Mitt Romney haben sich diese Woche in ihrer ersten Debatte gegenübergestellt. Einige Experten sagen, dass die Debatten für das Endergebnis der Wahl nicht wirklich wichtig sind, und dennoch zeigen Umfragen, dass Romney nach seinem Auftritt einen großen Aufschwung erlebt hat. Moderator Guy Raz spricht mit Jim Fallows von Der Atlantik (The Atlantic) darüber, welche Auswirkungen die Debatten, wenn überhaupt, auf unentschlossene Wähler haben könnten.

美国总统奥巴马和共和党挑战者米特·罗姆尼在本周的首次辩论中达成了一致。一些权威人士说，辩论对选举的最终结果并不重要，然而民意调查显示罗姆尼在表现出色后获得了巨大的反弹。主持人盖伊·拉兹与《大西洋》杂志的吉姆·法洛斯谈论了辩论可能对尚未决定的选民产生的影响。

Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Thanks for having me. CONAN: So who's got a good '08 campaign song, do you think? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): I have to say I'm kind of partial to John McCain, who's using ABBA's "Take a Chance on Me." And the reason that I like it is because who would have thought that John McCain would be using an ABBA song. And it's a disco tune. And it's a song that really does not seem to sum up, in any way, who John McCain is or who the voters', you know, idea of John McCain is. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): But it symbolizes that he is forging his own path. There cannot be - I mean, I'm sure so many people said to John, you cannot use that song. And he did. And I think that's why he has the best song right now. ABBA (Pop Group): (Singing) If you change your mind, I'm the first in line. Honey, I'm still free. Take a chance on me. If you need me, let me know, gonna be around. If you've got no place to go when you're feeling down. CONAN: I was wondering why the words in Swedish were just the same as they were in English. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Me, too. CONAN: Anybody else doing well, do you think? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Well, I mean, I think that Barack Obama, he tends to have different songs depending on the context. You know, sometimes he comes out and greets his followers with a U2 song, sometimes with a Kanye West song. And I think, you know, having the acumen to change up the songs depending on your audience is a good thing. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): You know, Mitt Romney tends to play Bachman-Turner Overdrive wherever he goes and not everyone was a BTO fan. CONAN: Mm-hmm. This is the clip that Barack Obama uses sometimes - U2 song "City of Blinding Lights." BONO (Lead Singer, U2): (Singing) And I miss you when you're not around. I'm getting ready to leave the ground. CONAN: Which sounds just great but what does it have to do with a political campaign? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Well, in my opinion, I mean, who's more electable than Bono? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Bono could probably get elected in any number of countries including our own right now. So Obama and Edwards and probably others, scores of candidates have aligned themselves with U2 and their populist message. CONAN: And at the same time, as you - is it important that any particular campaign - you remember John Kennedy's "High Hopes" or something like that, which other than the ram knocking down that billion-kilowatt dam did not seem to have an awful lot to do with public policy. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): No. I don't think it does, and I think that most voters -decided or undecided - you know, are looking at things deeper, more important than candidate theme songs. But I think it's part of a trend, I think, to, you know, to humanize themselves in the eyes of the voters. And they are placing themselves in contexts such as YouTube or Facebook. And these are spheres that employ a conversational discourse as opposed to political discourse. And I think theme songs are part of that attempt to speak to voters in a conversational style. CONAN: Let's see if we can get some listeners in on this conversation. Again, 800-989-8255, e-mail talk@npr.org. Carrie Brownstein is our guest. CONAN: And let's talk with Fred(ph), Fred's with us from San Rafael in California. FRED (Caller): Hi. CONAN: Hi. FRED (Caller): I think my song is only good for today. It's "Goodbye Rudy Tuesday." CONAN: Goodbye Rudy - period - Tuesday. FRED (Caller): Yes. CONAN: I see. Of course, Rudy Giuliani making what some believe may be his last stand today in the Florida primary. There are an awful lot - Fred, thanks very much for that. FRED (Caller): Yes. CONAN: There are an awful lot of alternative suggestions that people may have. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Yes. When I wrote about campaign theme songs on my blog I received well over a hundred comments, and it's interesting that the optimism of the candidates theme songs are met with a lot of cynicism from, I think, the listeners. Suggestions ranged from LCD Soundsystem's "North American Scum" to, let's see, "Natural's Not in It" or "Not Great Men" by Gang of Four. And then one person recommended that all candidates use The Eagles' "You Can't Hide Your Lying Eyes." So... CONAN: Unlikely. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Yes. CONAN: Nevertheless, the LCD Soundsytem, something I'm not familiar with, other listeners may not be either. Let's listen to that suggestion. Mr. JAMES MURPHY (Front man, LCD Soundsystem): (Singing) You see I love this place that I have grown to know, all right, North America. And yeah, I know you wouldn't touch us with a ten-foot pole 'cause we're North Americans. We are North American scum. CONAN: All right, that might be a NAFTA song, I think, but I guess it could be adapted for a campaign. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Sure. I mean I think that, you know, people, I think, the average person, you know, music is important to them, it's personal and we do use music, whether it's superficial or not, to gauge something about someone else and, I mean, people even take time to consider what song they're going to put as their cellphone ring, I mean, that's a 15-second... CONAN: True. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): ...personal advertisement. So, you know, I think a lot of us would have a hard time coming up with a single song to sum up who we are, so this is not easy for a candidate. But I would advice to go for a more fearless approach, I think. CONAN: Let's get Bill(ph) on the line. Bill is with us from St. Louis in Missouri. BILL (Caller): Yes, I - Hey, Neal. Hey, Carrie. I have another timeless classic that's good for today certainly. Everybody's campaigning on the war so my suggestion was going to be "Combat Rock" by Sleater-Kinney. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Thank you. CONAN: I didn't know you had any cousins in St. Louis. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Yeah, I didn't either. BILL (Caller): I'm sorry, go ahead. CONAN: It's okay, Bill. Which candidate do you think it would be appropriate for? BILL (Caller): Well, I guess it depends on your interpretation whether it's a cynical take on combat or not but, you know, it's who wants to stay, who's going to go. I think a lot of people might kind of expect that to go with Hillary Clinton for the - the feminist take that often goes with Sleater-Kinney fans but, you know, it could go with Barack Obama too. CONAN: Okay. Thanks very much, Bill. CONAN: What do you think? What would you think if your song, Carrie Brownstein, got adopted as somebody's campaign theme? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): I guess it would depend on the candidate, and that has historically been an issue. You have Bruce Springsteen, feathers were ruffled when Ronald Reagan thought that "Born in the U.S.A." was just a patriotic tune when really it was more of a criticism of the Vietnam War. You had Tom Petty a little bit worried, I think it was Giuliani that was using his song, although Tom Petty not offended when Hillary Clinton used his songs. So... CONAN: Bobby McFerrin was upset when George Bush the First used his song. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Yeah. So, I think, it really depends on who you are supporting and musicians right now - Bright Eyes and a handful of younger musicians are aligning themselves with Obama so I think they'd be more than happy. I think if you are, you know, if you're supporting someone you're willing to loan your art to them. CONAN: Let's get Dan(ph) on the line, Dan with us from Ithaca, New York. DAN (Caller): Hi. I think one that's appropriate both for the politics and for the issues is that John Edwards' song should be "Under Pressure." Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): I agree. CONAN: That's a - he is and maybe it should. What does John Edwards use, do you know, Carrie? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): I think he was using "Pride in the Name of Love," also a U2 song. CONAN: Ha. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): So there again U2 seems to embody, just the every song somehow. CONAN: Thanks very... DAN (Caller): Oh, good. CONAN: Thanks, Dan. CONAN: And here's an e-mail from Barb(ph) in Michigan. I noticed you chose ABBA's "Take a Chance on Me," well, we didn't; the candidate did, but anyway, going on the same lines and era, how about for Hillary Clinton, Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman." If I remember some of the words I think it goes like, I am woman hear me roar, I am invincible. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Sure. I mean, Hillary Clinton also employs Celine Dion. And in my opinion, Clinton is somebody that needs to step outside of that. And not to criticize Celine Dion, she has a amazing voice but there's something a little bit brittle, that little, you know, impenetrable about her demeanor and so maybe if Clinton went for Betty Davis, who is the funk songstress in the '70s, "Dedicated to the Press" or - right now Clinton looks like she's going more for "It Takes Two" by Marvin Gaye, but, so it kind of depends. CONAN: Here's an e-mail question from Joe(ph) in North Wales, Pennsylvania. Has any campaign ever used classical music in their songs? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Not that I know of. I was thinking about that earlier. I feel like it might be a little too elitist and I think that from what I can tell people are latching onto a lyrical moment, sort of an anthemic quality, but I think you could do something pretty amazing with, you know, Wagner or Bach or Beethoven, but, you know, you can't get the rallying cry of a "Take a Chance on Me," if you're using classical music. CONAN: And you better steer away from Wagner, I suspect. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): I think so too. CONAN: Here's an e-mail from Brad(ph) who suggests the song for the outgoing, Blondie's "Just Go Away." CONAN: And, another e-mail, this one from Jim(ph) about the campaign songs in the past, of course, the most enduring and famous is "The MTA Song," the campaign song of Walter A. O'Brien when he ran for mayor of Boston, of course, made into a hit by the Kingston Trio - I'm old enough to remember that, I'm so old - Thanks very much for the e-mail. CONAN: Have any others lasted to your knowledge? Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Well, I think even, let's see, the Bill Clinton song, I think that's one, "Don't Stop Thinking About..." CONAN: "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Yeah, that, I think, that has an enduring quality, although to my mind "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" was the one kind of blithe song on a very intense album by Fleetwood Mac. I think the next song on the album was "You Can Go Your Own Way" which didn't quite paint that optimistic picture of tomorrow. CONAN: Mm-hmm. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): So, I think another thing to remember is, you know, listeners and music fans - excuse me - are pretty savvy and, you know, and Hillary Clinton uses "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" by The Police, you know, the line following that is, everything she does just turns me on. And, you know, people know that, and it's kind of awkward. So I think you have to look at the whole song and realize, you know, it's not just the chorus. There's other lyrics that might be referring to something that has nothing to do with politics and may be something you don't even want to be associated with. CONAN: Carrie Brownstein, thanks very much for your time today. Ms. CARRIE BROWNSTEIN (Blogger, Monitor Mix; Former Guitarist and Vocalist, Sleater-Kinney): Thanks for having me. CONAN: Carrie Brownstein, former guitarist and songwriter for the band Sleater-Kinney, now a blogger for the NPR music Web site, where you can read her blog, Monitor Mix. She joins us from Portland, Oregon. CONAN: And you are listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

At campaign events across the country, candidate playlists are pumping over PA systems. What songs have you heard? And what do you suggest? Songwriter, guitarist and NPR music blogger Carrie Brownstein talks about the campaign music underscoring each of the presidential hopefuls. Her favorite pick so far? Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has boldly chosen Abba's "Take A Chance On Me" as his campaign theme.

Bei Wahlkampfveranstaltungen im ganzen Land laufen die Playlists der Kandidaten über die Lautsprecheranlagen. Welche Lieder haben Sie gehört? Und was schlagen Sie vor? Die Songwriterin, Gitarristin und NPR-Musikbloggerin Carrie Brownstein spricht über die Wahlkampfmusik, die jeden der Präsidentschaftskandidaten untermalt. Ihr bisheriger Favorit? Der republikanische Präsidentschaftskandidat John McCain hat sich mutig für Abbas \"Gib mir eine Chance\" als Wahlkampfthema entschieden.

在全国各地的竞选活动中，候选人的音乐节目播放表在广播上滚动播放。你听过哪些歌？你有什么建议？作曲家、吉他手兼美国国家公共电台音乐博客写手卡丽·布朗斯坦谈到了每位总统候选人竞选的伴奏音乐。她最中意哪一个呢？共和党总统候选人约翰·麦凯恩大胆选择阿巴的《给我一个机会》作为他的竞选主题曲。

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: The shock of the Paris attacks may have moved much of Europe to pump up its counterterrorism efforts, but not Turkey. That majority Muslim country on the edge of Europe shows no sign of increased security measures, even though just weeks ago, a suicide bomber attacked a popular tourist attraction in Istanbul. Some Turks think the government should be more on its guard, as NPR's Peter Kenyon reports from another tourist site. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Even in January, Istanbul's Taksim Square is throbbing with life. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: A tram eases to a stop, spilling out tourists and locals under the already crowded pedestrian plaza. Two Americans, Valerie Frey and Brad Gehringer, put down a Turkey guidebook to consider how safe the country is. They have more reason than most here to have thought about this. They live in Paris and were shocked by the attacks against cartoonists and shoppers in a kosher market. But they say Turkey doesn't strike them as a particularly dangerous place. VALERIE FREY: We weren't too worried, I think, about terrorism. I mean, it's not something we're really worried about, I think, when we travel. BRAD GEHRINGER: Yeah, terrorism's obviously something you can't plan for. And, you know, you understand that it happens, and I think we honestly just don't really think about it. VALERIE FREY: Probably a greater risk of food poisoning, you know. (Laughter). BRAD GEHRINGER: Right. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Even before the attacks in France this month, a woman wearing explosives blew up her device in front of tourist police building in the heart of Istanbul's Old City, on any given day, one of the most crowded places in the country. One policeman was killed, and officials rushed to downplay it as a one-off random attack. It turned out the bomber was Russian from Dagestan near Chechnya and had reportedly recently been married to an al-Qaida supporter. Risk analysis consultant Mete Yarar has been advising investors on security risks in Turkey for a decade now. He says if anyone believes this country is exempt from terrorist attacks because of the current government's roots in political Islam, they haven't been paying attention. METE YARAR: (Through interpreter) This idea just is insensible. Most of those killed in these jihadist attacks have been Muslims, and most of the fighting in the countries next door is between Muslims. So Turkey may be a Muslim country, but this is a very threatening regional environment. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Political scientist Ersin Kalaycioglu at Sabanci University says besides several hundred Turkish fighters involved in the Syria conflict, there are thousands of Sunni Muslims in Turkey who are, to some degree, sympathetic to message of jihadist groups, such as al-Qaida or the self-described Islamic State. ERSIN KALAYCIOGLU: Turkey is deep in this, up to its throat. So they can't simply assume that, you know, these are non-issues for Turkey. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: But acknowledging the risk doesn't make addressing it any easier. The traditional approaches - tightly securing borders and investing heavily in intelligence gathering - are costly and time-consuming. In addition, Kalaycioglu says this government isn't particularly focused on jihadist violence as a primary threat. It seems more focused on quashing a corruption investigation that threatened several cabinet ministers and stifling any dissent that probe might inspire. And that, Kalaycioglu argues, actually may make it harder to keep track of nascent terror threats. ERSIN KALAYCIOGLU: One good policy would be, of course, to have more freedom - freedom of debate - so that they can see these people coming out and making their arguments in larger audiences, and then you can engage them and try to explain that, you know, this is not only a matter of religion, but also politics. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: For now, however, the government in Ankara seems more interested in talking about the rising Islamophobia in Europe rather than whatever threats Turks may be facing at home. Peter Kenyon, NPR News, Istanbul.

Alert levels were raised in Europe after the Paris terrorist attacks. Experts say Turkey should be concerned, pointing out that "being a Muslim country won't exempt Turkey from violence."

In Europa wurden nach den Terroranschlägen von Paris die Alarmstufen angehoben. Experten sagen, dass die Türkei besorgt sein sollte, und weisen darauf hin, dass die Türkei \"als muslimisches Land nicht von Gewalt verschont bleibt.\"

巴黎恐怖袭击后，欧洲提高了警戒级别。专家表示，土耳其应该对此感到担忧，并指出“作为一个穆斯林国家，不会让土耳其免于暴力”。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The wellness craze is a big business here in the U.S. Well, in India, there is a Hindu wellness craze - food and cosmetics based on ancient Hindu medicine. It's become a multibillion-dollar industry under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He's running for a second term, and he's campaigning as a Hindu nationalist who wants the country's majority faith to play a bigger role in politics, public life and even supermarkets. NPR's Lauren Frayer reports from Mumbai. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: At a dairy farm north of Mumbai, Umesh Soni is sourcing ingredients for his line of cosmetics. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: So this is, like, a jerrycan. UMESH SONI: We store this cow urine. You can smell this. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Oh, yeah, yeah. UMESH SONI: Yeah. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Yeah, it's cow urine. UMESH SONI: It smells. Cow urine - yeah. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Yes, cow urine - cows are sacred to Hindus, and many believe their excrement has healing powers. UMESH SONI: This is a special soap. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: At Soni's cosmetics shop in Mumbai, the shelves are laden with special soap, shampoo, face wash, even eye gel. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: So that's lip balm with cow urine in it. UMESH SONI: Yes, cow urine, cow dung, milk. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: And you've got wild berry flavored, chocolate flavor, guava. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: This is a fast-growing retail market in India. Soni says his profits have multiplied by six since he started this business in 2012. India's economy is booming, and there's a burgeoning new middle class. UMESH SONI: This is a modern India. People are wealthy. They are earning good. They want to associate with brands. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Brands that are also home-grown and distinctly Hindu. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Singing in foreign language). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: An ad for a popular Indian toothpaste pokes fun at Western brands. The message is, embrace traditional Hindu remedies instead like yoga. PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI: (Foreign language spoken). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: "Yoga is part of India's ancient heritage," Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in 2014 at the United Nations, which then declared an International Day of Yoga, June 21. While Modi has pushed yoga as part of India's soft power abroad, someone else has long been doing that inside India. PRIYANKA PATHAK: Baba Ramdev is India's most famous yoga guru. So he is the saffron-clad; long, flowing, black beard... LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: His biographer Priyanka Pathak describes how a Hindu monk named Baba Ramdev started teaching yoga on TV in the early 2000s and has since expanded into selling everything from instant noodles to aloe vera gel, all based on ancient Hindu healing called Ayurveda. While Modi has put Hinduism into politics, Baba Ramdev has put it in your shopping cart. You'd be hard pressed to find a market in India where they don't sell his products. His face is on billboards everywhere. By 2017, his company Patanjali had bypassed giants like Nestle India. In the past six years, its revenues have multiplied more than 10 times. PRIYANKA PATHAK: It's like a Walmart on drugs. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Pathak thinks the popularity of Ayurveda has something to do with globalization. India's economy has opened quickly to the world, and that can be bewildering, she says. PRIYANKA PATHAK: Quite similar to Make America Great Again, you feel that you've gone very far away from your roots or you've lost your country or you've lost your culture; you lost your civilizational roots. What is the one tangible thing that I can do to reassert my identity? LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Buy products that embody that Hindu culture you don't want to lose. That's also Prime Minister Modi's message - that the Hindu faith is being diluted either by globalization, secularism or by immigrants, and thus we must protect it, cling to it, elevate it. Anthropologist Bhuvi Gupta says Modi and Baba Ramdev are both charismatic leaders who have managed to bring together religion, politics and commerce under a single banner of Hindu nationalism. Both are self-made from humble roots. BHUVI GUPTA: Both of them, I think, are able to talk to a constituency that nobody has been able to speak to so far - not doctors, not companies, not traditional politicians. They are able to tap in to these sort of feelings of being left out by Indian modernity. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: And they're also really good friends. Baba Ramdev campaigned for Modi when he first ran for prime minister in 2014. Once in power, Modi created a government ministry to promote Ayurveda. It gives loans to entrepreneurs and wellness centers and claims to have boosted the number of Ayurveda patients in India buy as much as 20 percent. But some scientists are a bit concerned because this isn't just lip gloss. It's also homeopathic medicine. MEERA NANDA: The problem comes when you are actually suffering from diabetes or AIDS and then you're told that - stop taking insulin, and take our product. That is where the real problem comes in. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Meera Nanda is a microbiologist who's examined the efficacy of this. She says the Ayurvedic ministry has lax standards and not enough clinical testing. She wants government resources put toward conventional medicine for all. MEERA NANDA: If middle classes feel comfortable with using their cow dung soap, it's their money. Given the sad state of health in India and complete lack of access to proper medical care, that's the best we can do for them. You know, that just - that breaks my heart - really does. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Browsing those shelves of cow dung soap in Mumbai is 60-year-old Geeta Jogi. She's a cancer patient filling her shopping bag with cow urine cosmetics. GEETA JOGI: (Foreign language spoken). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: She believes these products are pure and hygienic, good for her health and also good for cows, who are kept in shelters, having their urine collected rather than going to the slaughter. It's like fair trade Hindu style. Jogi says these products make her feel good, and they make her feel Indian. Lauren Frayer, NPR News, Mumbai.

A barefoot, bearded yoga guru is behind a booming retail empire in India. Baba Ramdev sells Ayurveda, wellness products based on Hindu healing. It's all the rage amid a wave of Hindu nationalism.

Ein barfüßiger, bärtiger Yoga-Guru steht hinter einem boomenden Einzelhandelsimperium in Indien. Baba Ramdev verkauft Ayurveda, Wellnessprodukte, die auf der Hindu-Heilung basieren. Es ist in Mode inmitten einer Welle des hinduistischen Nationalismus.

印度蓬勃发展的零售帝国背后，是一位赤脚长髯的瑜伽大师。 巴巴·拉姆德夫售卖基于印度教疗法的保健产品阿育吠陀。在印度教民族主义浪潮中风靡一时。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Madeleine Brand. ALEX COHEN, host: I'm Alex Cohen. ALEX COHEN, host: In a few minutes, a new TV show where women are referred to as kittens and cougars, and yet our TV critic says it has redeeming value. ALEX COHEN, host: Andrew Wallenstein looks into NBC's "Age of Love." MADELEINE BRAND, host: But first, it's far from love. There is something there, though, that keeps senators in Washington interested. I'm talking about the immigration bill. It's back on the table in Congress this week. More than 20 amendments need to be hashed out, though, and passage is far from assured. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR Washington editor Ron Elving joins us now for our weekly chat. And today he is here live, not in Memorex, right before me in the NPR West studios. Hi, Ron. RON ELVING: Hi, Madeleine. And it is a great pleasure to be here. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. You old cougar, you. So everyone threw dirt on this immigration bill and walked away just a couple of weeks ago. Is it really, really back? RON ELVING: Not all the way back. It's not really on the floor of the Senate yet. But it does appear that reports of its death were somewhat exaggerated. Harry Reid was the guy who pulled it from the Senate floor. He's the majority leader. And now he has decided he wants to bring it back. He is pleased enough to bring it back with the negotiations that have gone on more recently. RON ELVING: So that probably means the end of this week, or more likely next week. They've got a deal to limit the amendments. The Republicans will not have endless amendments coming to the floor. But they still need 60 votes for cloture. That's the vote to cut off debate. And we just don't know if they've got those votes yet. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And President Bush was there last week and trying to get the senators of his party to back him on this. And was he successful? RON ELVING: I think you'd have to give him quite a bit of either the credit or the blame, depending on your point of view about this bill. But he really had a lot to do with bringing it back to life. Came to the Hill. That's a big deal. He sat down in the Republican senators super-secret clubhouse lunchroom. And he listened to them. Now that's really the key. RON ELVING: He didn't just come to talk. He came to listen. And he did listen to the Republican senators and he agreed to add a $4.4 billion guarantee for more interior enforcement spending. That's very important. Not just border enforcement but also interior spending on enforcement to go after people. RON ELVING: And that really seemed to have made a difference at least in giving people a little more cover so that they said they could go back to their constituents and say that it was an anti-immigration as well as a pro-immigration bill and that would be controlling the current situation. MADELEINE BRAND, host: So aside from that, has the bill really changed? RON ELVING: Not really. It's still the same basic trade-off between beefing up the border and having a legalization program for the 12 to 15 million people who are here now illegally. And it also has a guest worker program and some other changes. But it isn't basically different from what we've been talking about throughout this debate. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. So - wondering though, out there, you know, amongst the grassroots groups who have lobbied against it, is that going to change their minds? RON ELVING: I don't think it will. No. I don't believe it will. The changes are enough to round up just enough votes to get them back to 60, perhaps. We're thinking that they've done enough to get most of the Republicans back in the corral. But you've still got, for example, the three J's - Jim, Jeff and John. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and John Cornyn of Texas. And they're still fighting this tooth and nail. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And what about the House? Where is the bill - where is it going in the House? RON ELVING: Speaker Pelosi has said over the weekend to Bloomberg News Service that it will pass the House if the Republicans will cough up 50 to 70 votes on their side. Now, there are about 200 Republicans in the House. Fifty to 70 wouldn't seem like that many, but given how unpopular this legislation is among Republicans, that might be too many. RON ELVING: And so even if it got 40, I think it would have a pretty good chance of passing if Pelosi can get 180 for Democrats to go with it. And it's not clear yet at this point whether 40 Republicans are available, and it's not clear whether 180 Democrats are available when it really comes down to crunch time. We're going to have to see if either side can come up with that number of votes. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. And so if either side doesn't, that means forget it for at least another year, right? RON ELVING: It does. The bill, if they do pass it, if they do come up with the 218 minimum to get it passed, still has to go back to a conference with the Senate. And as we know, the Senate is just barely onboard for this bill. RON ELVING: So whatever it takes to get it through the Senate might make it a little more precarious in the House. Whatever amendments have to be passed in the House to make it more acceptable and get those big vote margins in both parties that they're looking for, those amendments could make it unacceptable in the Senate. It's so precariously balance that's it's very hard to put money on it at this point. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Okay. Well, we will stay tuned. NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving here in California. Thank you very much. RON ELVING: Much more fun to do it this way, Madeleine. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Indeed.

The immigration bill is back on the table in Congress this week, but more than 20 amendments need to be hashed out and passage is far from assured.

Das Einwanderungsgesetz liegt diese Woche im Kongress wieder auf dem Tisch, aber mehr als 20 Änderungsanträge müssen ausgeheckt werden und die Verabschiedung ist alles andere als gesichert.

本周，移民法案在国会重新提上议事日程，但仍有20多个修正案需解决，而且还远不能保证通过。

ROBERT SIEGEL, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Robert Siegel. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: With more now on how the housing bust is taking its toll on state budgets. States rely heavily on property and sales tax revenue, and the real estate slump has cut into both, big time. At least 25 states are facing budget shortfalls, totaling more than $39 billion. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Today, we're going to hear about three of those states - Kentucky, Illinois and the most populous state in the country, California, which is facing a $16 billion budget gap. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: We start with John Myers of member station KQED. He's in Sacramento. JOHN MYERS: For the past few years, California dreaming has been full of nightmares over the state's budget. The budget nightmares are rooted in long-term problems like the mismatch between modest growth in revenues and the programs approved by voters. But when the bottom fell out of California's real estate market, things got worst. And even though lawmakers have solved the state's immediate problems, they still are some $8 billion in the hole. JOHN MYERS: That somber reality has left the eternally optimistic Arnold Schwarzenegger preaching tough love. In an event last week in Riverside County, just east of Los Angeles, the governor defended his most controversial plan, a one-size-fits-all spending cut. Governor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (Republican, California): We recommended to make 10 percent cuts across the board, so we don't pick and choose what is our favorite and what is a Republican program and what is a Democratic program. We felt that we shouldn't get into that fight. We should just cut 10 percent across the board. JOHN MYERS: But that seemingly agnostic approach has majority Democrats in the California legislature threatening an all-out war. They want an approach that prioritizes which state services matter most. And tops on their list — protecting public schools, which have already sent out pink slips to thousands of teachers. And Democrats say there's no way around the obvious. Mr. DON PERATA (President Pro Tempore, California State Senate): Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes. JOHN MYERS: Don Perata, president pro tempore of the State Senate, is threatening to keep the budget-fight going, long passed the beginning of California's fiscal year in July. Mr. DON PERATA (President Pro Tempore, California State Senate): We're going to be here as long as we have to be, until we have a budget that gives education the priority it deserves. JOHN MYERS: Opposition to tax increases has been the signature issue of Arnold Schwarzenegger's political career. But this year, he's hinted, he may agree to a repeal of some $2 billion in tax credits to help balance the budget. That, however, would require at least some support from Republicans in the legislature. And the only thing they hate more than the Republican governor, who many see as too liberal, are new taxes. JOHN MYERS: Still Arnold Schwarzenegger's charm is legendary. But so far, it's failed to bridge the bitter ideological divide that exists inside the state capital. And that is the problem that has kept California reeling from one financial crisis to the next. JOHN MYERS: For NPR News, I'm John Myers in Sacramento.

California is facing a massive $16-billion budget deficit. To fix the problem, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed across-the-board budget cuts. But Democrats in the state Legislature are unlikely to go along with his plan.

Kalifornien steht vor einem massiven Haushaltsdefizit von 16 Milliarden Dollar. Um das Problem zu lösen, hat Gouverneur Arnold Schwarzenegger umfassende Haushaltskürzungen vorgeschlagen. Aber die Demokraten in der Legislative des Bundesstaates werden seinem Plan wahrscheinlich nicht zustimmen.

加州面临着高达160亿美元的财政赤字。为了解决这个问题，州长阿诺德·施瓦辛格提议全面削减预算。但是州议会的民主党人不太可能追随他的计划。

RENEE MONTAGNE, host: The trial of Lewis Libby offers a window into how you get your news. A parade of reporters has been called to testify in the trial of the former White House aide. First came prosecution witnesses, then yesterday, reporters for the defense. All this testimony involves how and by whom Valerie Plame Wilson was revealed as an operative for the CIA. That happened after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the White House of twisting intelligence about Iraq. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Here's NPR's legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg. NINA TOTENBERG: In all, six journalists testified yesterday with more expected today or tomorrow. The journalistic cast was called by the defense, in essence, to prove a negative. All six said they either did not discuss Mrs. Wilson's CIA identity with Libby, or they could not recall having done so. The defense presumably will argue to the jury that if Scooter Libby was part of a plot to leak Valerie Wilson's name, he would have been leaking to any interested reporter. But none of the six reporters yesterday said Libby had told them anything about Mrs. Wilson. NINA TOTENBERG: In his grand jury testimony though, Libby said he had selected Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, whom he viewed as ideologically sympathetic to talk to about what Vice President Cheney considered a bum rap: the notion that intelligence had been deliberately twisted to justify the war. Libby told the grand jury that, although the president of the United States had personally declassified information for him to discuss with Miller, he did not seek to personally discredit Ambassador Wilson and had not discussed Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment. But Miller contradicted that in her trial testimony and in her notes of her conversations with Libby. NINA TOTENBERG: The defense has also argued that Libby had no reason to lie to the grand jury since the leak that spurred the investigation came from columnist Robert Novak. Libby told the grand jury he had not talked to Novak, so yesterday the defense called Novak to the stand. The columnist said he had, in fact, talked to Libby but got nothing out of him about former Ambassador Wilson's wife. His primary source for his column - disclosing Mrs. Wilson's identity - he said was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. The information, he said, was confirmed by a White House political guru, Karl Rove. NINA TOTENBERG: The State Department's Armitage also blabbed about Mrs. Wilson to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. Woodward was researching a book on the decision to invade Iraq and talked to Armitage on that basis. Woodward testified yesterday, that in a long tape recorded interview, about a minute was devoted to questions about former Ambassador Wilson. Yesterday, defense lawyers played the relevant portion for the jury, in which Woodward is pressing to find out why Wilson was selected by the CIA for a fact-finding mission to Africa that dealt with possible Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium for weapons of mass destruction. NINA TOTENBERG: Woodward: Why would they send him? NINA TOTENBERG: Armitage: Because his wife is an expletive deleted analyst at the agency. NINA TOTENBERG: Woodward: It's still weird. NINA TOTENBERG: Armitage: It's perfect. That's what she does. She's a WMD analyst out there. NINA TOTENBERG: It's not yet clear whether Armitage himself will testify. He's on the defense witness list, but he may be more useful as an alternative theory for the defense than as a real live witness. If he is called by the defense, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would likely point out that Armitage came clean on the leak right away, while Libby - as the prosecutor sees it - lied. NINA TOTENBERG: It seems increasingly unlikely that Libby will testify in his own defense; or that his one-time boss, Vice President Cheney, will either. In legal motions yesterday, the defense sent a strong signal that it's leaning against calling Libby. Defense lawyers argue that even if they don't call him to testify, they should be able to tell the jury that in the spring and summer of 2003, at the time of the leaks, Libby was preoccupied with scary national security threats from al-Qaida. NINA TOTENBERG: Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Some of the nation's best-known journalists are called to the witness stand. Defense attorneys for Lewis "Scooter" Libby will try to show that he is a scapegoat for others who helped expose the identity of a CIA operative.

Einige der bekanntesten Journalisten des Landes werden in den Zeugenstand gerufen. Die Verteidiger von Lewis \"Scooter\" Libby werden versuchen zu zeigen, dass er ein Sündenbock für andere ist, die geholfen haben, die Identität eines CIA-Agenten aufzudecken.

一些全国最知名的记者被传唤到证人席。刘易斯·“斯库特”·利比的辩护律师试图证明他只是替罪羊，帮助揭露中情局特工身份的另有其人。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right, we have an update now on a major battle in the publishing industry. It has pitted Amazon against the publishing company Hachette, and it has some authors so angry they're taking their fight to Amazon's board of directors. Here's NPR's Neda Ulaby. NEDA ULABY, BYLINE: At issue is this, Amazon wants Hachette to charge less for e-books, and Hachette is not giving in. So for the past three months, Amazon's retaliated by making it harder to order books by Hachette writers online. DOUGLAS PRESTON: They're being absolutely crushed by this. NEDA ULABY, BYLINE: Bestselling thriller writer, Douglas Preston, is just one of the many Hachette writers who say their sales have dropped 60 to 90 percent since this fight began, and the stakes are rising. Fall is when book publishing really heats up, and Preston almost laughed when I wondered whether Hachette authors are worried. DOUGLAS PRESTON: The word worried is an understatement. I mean, there are 2,500 authors whose books are being sanctioned, and they are in a panic. NEDA ULABY, BYLINE: Amazon is declining preorders for some Hachette books and slowing delivery of others. Preston drafted a letter to be signed by more than a thousand writers supporting Hachette authors which will be sent to Amazon's powerful board of directors. But James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research, doubts it'll do much good. JAMES MCQUIVEY: I don't think the board was unaware that this would cause trouble for some of the authors, and so it almost makes the authors seem a bit naive in their response. NEDA ULABY, BYLINE: For its part, Amazon declined to comment for the story. Neda Ulaby, NPR News.

The authors want Amazon's board to intercede in the dispute between the publisher and the online retailer over the price of e-books. Amazon continues to impede sales of Hachette books.

Die Autoren wollen, dass der Vorstand von Amazon in den Streit zwischen dem Verlag und dem Online-Händler über die Preise für E-Books eingreift. Amazon behindert weiterhin den Verkauf von Hachette-Büchern.

两位作者希望亚马逊的董事会能介入出版商和在线零售商之间关于电子书价格的纠纷。亚马逊继续阻碍阿歇特图书的销售。

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: With its air campaign in Syria, the U.S. says it's coming to the aid of rebels in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS. But some Syrian rebels are worried. They fear the airstrikes will benefit Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and they say that he should be the primary target. NPR's Deborah Amos reports from Istanbul. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: As the airstrikes against ISIS gain momentum, so do the protests in Syrian cities under rebel control with videos posted on YouTube. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Rebel commanders who fight under the name The Free Syrian Army publicly welcome the strikes. Privately, they fear the Assad regime will gain at their expense. Regime aircraft continue to drop devastating barrel bombs on rebel positions and civilian neighborhoods around the northern city of Aleppo. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: One activist posted this comment. (Reading) The U.S. is going to war against a barbaric enemy, but no one is talking about the barbarism that helped create it. AIAD KOUDSI: What they want is to see some action against the regime - the Assad regime. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: That's Aiad Koudsi, a top official in Syria's political opposition. He agrees the main enemy is the regime. In recent days Washington officials have been on the offensive, speaking on Arabic-language satellite channels insisting the U.S. backs rebel goals. But Koudsi says the Assad regime has also launched a savvy media campaign claiming to be a crucial partner in the U.S. strategy. AIAD KOUDSI: Assad is like a joker in the Batman movies, you know? He will play it the way he would like to, and he will use it for his benefit every single time. So I give him credit for being a good liar, and unfortunately people believe him. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: But it's hard to beat perceptions on the ground. The U.S. says is not cooperating with Damascus, but the regime does seem to be benefiting. Last week, government troops regained new territory around the capital, routing the rebels after a year-long fight. And the U.S.-led strikes have failed to stop an ISIS advance on the Syrian border town of Kobani, sending even more refugees fleeing across the Turkish frontier. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Resentment is building. Many Syrian activists say 200,000 deaths didn't move Washington. The Obama administration only stepped in to strike at ISIS radicals seen as a threat back home. Yassin Haj Saleh, a leading writer in Syria's uprising, talks about reactions to airstrikes in Raqqa, his home town. He refers to ISIS by the Arabic name of Da'ash. YASSIN HAJ SALEH: No one of them is sorry that Da'ash being bombed, but no one of them is happy that the U.S. is now doing this. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Haj Saleh is often called the conscience of the revolution. He wrote from Damascus while in hiding and escaped to Raqqa, where he had to hide again when ISIS militants took control. In his latest essay he names the three monsters he says are treading on Syria's exhausted body - the regime, the militants and the West. I don't trust American intentions, he tells me - our cause to change Syria is now a footnote to a war on ISIS. The right thing to do, he claims, is to build a coalition against the militants and the regime. The Syrian president is responsible for more Syrian deaths than ISIS. YASSIN HAJ SALEH: We have a bad guy that was doing his job in killing his subjects for 42 months. And he's seeing that another bad guy who is new in the killing business and who killed only thousands, perhaps, being beaten. So I think he's happy. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: The U.S. insists the air campaign is designed to strengthen the moderate opposition and lead to a political transition in Syria. But the rebels who've been fighting ISIS for more than a year say they haven't been given any role in the new U.S. strategy. Deborah Amos, NPR News, Istanbul.

The U.S. says it's not coordinating its attacks on ISIS with the Syrian regime. But opponents to Syrian President Bashar Assad worry that he's benefitting from the U.S. air campaign.

Die USA sagen, dass sie ihre Angriffe auf ISIS nicht mit dem syrischen Regime koordinieren. Gegner des syrischen Präsidenten Bashar Assad befürchten jedoch, dass er von der US-Luftkampagne profitiert.

美国表示，他们没有与叙利亚政府协调对ISIS的袭击。但是叙利亚总统巴沙尔·阿萨德的反对者担心，他会从美国的空袭行动中获益。

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: The severe drought here in the West has brought warnings of another long and expensive summer fighting wildfires. Federal officials say the most vulnerable states include California and Alaska, where two large wildfires are already burning. NPR's Kirk Siegler reports. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Federal land managers gave their annual wildfire briefing at a wildlife refuge outside Denver, a bright, green island in the otherwise bone-dry West. That wasn't lost on U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. TOM TIDWELL: You know, we've been fortunate that we've had some very favorable weather here in this part of the country. It's great to be able to see how green it is. It's great to be able to see a little bit of snow still up on the top of the mountains. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: But Tidwell says it won't take long for all that green in the Rockies to dry out. And the situation further west is much worse. The Forest Service is warning states from California to Washington to brace for an above average wildfire season. Last year, the Carlton complex was the largest wildfire in Washington's history, blackening some 400 square miles and destroying hundreds of homes. Federal land managers are renewing pressure on Congress to create a separate fund under FEMA to pay for fighting catastrophic blazes like that. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says that would leave more money for prevention programs. TOM VILSACK: It's not like you're increasing the budget. You're just simply using a fund that's set aside for natural disasters, and that's precisely what these are. KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: This idea has been proposed in one bill or another since back in the George W. Bush administration, but it's never been implemented. Kirk Siegler, NPR News.

Federal officials are warning of another long and costly wildfire season in the parched West. They're also renewing calls on Congress to change how the federal government pays for fighting fires.

Bundesbeamte warnen vor einer weiteren langen und kostspieligen Waldbrandsaison im ausgedörrten Westen. Sie erneuern auch Forderungen an den Kongress, die Zahlungsweise der Bundesregierung für die Brandbekämpfung zu ändern.

联邦政府官员警告说，炎热的西部地区又将迎来漫长野火季，扑灭野火将付出巨大代价。他们还呼吁国会，改变联邦政府支付灭火费用的方式。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: I'm sorry, this is just surreal. A Spanish judge has ordered the surrealist artist Salvador Dali's body be exhumed for DNA tests in a paternity suit. Here's Lauren Frayer from Madrid. LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Pilar Abel was born in 1956 to a maid working for a family who vacationed on Spain's Mediterranean coast, near the home of Salvador Dali. PILAR ABEL: (Speaking Spanish). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: "The first time I saw him, I was a little girl," she says, "I was out for a walk with my grandmother, and she pointed him out." Abel spoke to reporters three years ago when she first filed her paternity suit. She described confronting her mother... PILAR ABEL: (Speaking Spanish). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: ...Who admitted to having an affair with the artist in 1955, the year before Abel was born. Abel says her family always told her she was strange, just like your father. Dali was infamously eccentric. His most famous surrealist painting is of melting clocks. He was married at the time to his muse Gala, who lived in a castle, which he visited with written permission only. They had no children. Without an heir, Dali left his fortune - in the hundreds of millions - to the Spanish state when he died in 1989. But then in 2007... PILAR ABEL: (Speaking Spanish). LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: "I went public with my big secret," Abel says. She now works as a tarot card reader and claims to resemble Dali. "The only thing missing is the moustache," she says. On Monday, a judge approved her lawsuit and ordered Dali's bones exhumed for DNA tests. He's buried in a crypt under a theater and museum in his home town. The foundation that manages Dali's assets says it'll appeal in the coming days. Abel could claim up to a quarter of that fortune. In that case, she says she's thinking about changing her name to Dali. For NPR News, I'm Lauren Frayer in Madrid.

A Spanish judge has ruled that the body of artist Salvador Dali be exhumed in order to perform a paternity test for a tarot card reader who claims the surrealist, who died in 1989, was her father.

Ein spanischer Richter hat entschieden, dass die Leiche des Künstlers Salvador Dali exhumiert wird, um einen Vaterschaftstest für eine Tarotkartenleserin durchzuführen, die behauptet, der 1989 verstorbene Surrealist sei ihr Vater.

一名西班牙法官裁定，艺术家萨尔瓦多·达利的遗体应被挖掘出来，以便为一名塔罗牌占卜师进行亲子鉴定。这名占卜师声称这名于1989年去世的超现实主义者是她的父亲。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan with a special broadcast today from the Joseph H. and Claire Flom Auditorium at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. Today's show is part of a project called The National Conversation, a joint production of the Wilson Center and NPR. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And with the election behind us, we focus today on U.S. foreign policy in the second Obama administration. The president faces ongoing repercussions of the Arab spring, including an immediate crisis in Syria, more on that in a moment; a constitutional crisis in Egypt and continued protests in Bahrain. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Barring a diplomatic breakthrough, there's a looming confrontation with Iran. Russia seeks dominance in much of the old Soviet Union and the broad strategic challenge of an emergent China. And of course I've left out a continent or two. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you travel abroad, we want to hear from you. What is a problem the U.S. needs to address or an opportunity the U.S. ought to exploit? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also weigh in on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll also take questions from the audience here at the Wilson Center. But we begin with Syria, where after months of stalemate, rebel forces appear to have seized the initiative. NPR foreign correspondent Deborah Amos now joins us from Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Nice to have you back on the show, Deborah. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Thanks, Neal, and I'm in Antakya, which is much closer to the Syrian-Turkish border. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, good. I have to ask you about what seems like ominous news from Syria today: foreign airlines canceling flights into Damascus; reports that much of the Internet is down. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Indeed the Internet was black in the whole country, and after this 20 months of revolt, it was unusual to say the least. We have seen the Internet shut down in some (unintelligible) towns, some neighborhoods, over time, usually Friday, it slows down, but never on this scale. And so it's been very difficult to find out what is happening inside the country. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: There have been some videos that have emerged. There are some activists who still have satellite communications. But for Syria to go dark since about noon today is really something. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that raises the question: The government denies it's responsible. It blames what it calls terrorists. Others say it's the government itself that brought the Internet down. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: I've talked to some people who know a whole lot more about the Internet than I do, and they compare it to what happened in Egypt when President Mubarak flipped the switch and turned off the system there. This is a country-wide shutdown. It's very hard to think that any group could do this on their own. And so most people who do follow Internet protocols say that it is something that only a government can do. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that raises a question: In the case of Egypt, it was believed the purpose was to prevent rebel groups from - opposition groups from communicating amongst themselves. In this case, the fear would be this is the government doing things they don't want us to see. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, there's two issues here. One is the regime has used the Internet over time and certainly over these 20 months to actually monitor activists, to find them. And so in a way they have kept it on for their own intelligence purposes. Today there was certainly speculation that this was a moment that the government was taking the gloves off, and they didn't want the videos to be uploaded. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: But no country can really keep their Internet off forever, not a country that has banks, insurance companies, international businesses. You simply can't do it. And even the Egyptian government found that after a day or two they had to turn it back on. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Now we do have some limited reporting from inside Syria. Apparently there was a ferocious bombing campaign on a suburb called Daraa. And I saw some videos that emerged from yesterday, and it looks like the end of the Earth. There is nothing standing in some of these neighborhoods. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: A video also emerged from Aleppo today, where there was a bombing on a school, and you could see people taking the bodies of young children out of that school. They had been killed in the bombing raid. I think we will not know, maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day, the full extent of what happened. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: We do know that there was heavy fighting on the airport road, and Damascus Airport was shut, and there were many international carriers who suspended all flights into the Syrian capital. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And they cited the situation around the airport, around Damascus, the capital. What do we know about that, and how serious is it, well, Emirates Air and Egypt Air don't fly in? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, it is very serious for - certainly for the government to have their international airport shut down. Earlier in the day, there was some official news that those flights would be moved. That's very difficult. The rebels control so many of the roads outside of the capital that it's hard to think where exactly people would go to take international flights. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: The fighting on the airport road was apparently very heavy from the limited reports we are getting. The Aleppo airport in the north has also been surrounded by rebels. Those flights are also sporadic. And so at the moment international flights in Syria are off. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Step back for a moment, Deborah. There's been sort of a stalemate for several months now, as the government and rebel forces battled against each other. That seems to have shifted. How quickly are things changing? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: It does seem that we are in a different momentum that I have certainly seen in the past couple of months, even the past couple of weeks. And the real turn has come over maybe the past week. The rebels have taken four bases in a week, including a helicopter base outside of Damascus. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: They didn't hold that base outside of Damascus because they know that there are air retaliations for that kind of activity. So they moved back out of that base. But in the north, they have held those bases, in particular a rather large base outside of Aleppo, which gave them an enormous cache of new weapons. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Yesterday we saw two regime aircraft taken down by surface-to-air missiles, and a video emerged early this morning of the gunner who shot those two aircraft down. He was a man said to be a schoolteacher. We were able to reach early this morning, into the country, people who know him. And they say that he had graduated from college, he's a geographer and then a schoolteacher. He joined the rebels. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And he was holding this missile launcher and talking about what had happened and how he'd shot them out of the sky and said that there would be no more regime flights over his town. That is a big jump for the rebels. We haven't seen that before, that they have been able to take out the air force because up until now, that has been the regime's trump card. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: They - the rebels can hold the ground, but as long as the regime controls the skies, they really don't hold much of anything because towns and villages are bombed on a daily basis. So this is a bit of a game-changer. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Now, we're only one day out of this particular event. The real question is: How many of these surface-to-air missiles do the rebels actually have? And there's all kinds of speculations, from 40 to 60. We really don't know. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And as this is going on, it raises a series of questions we haven't considered for a number of months now. Among them: Is there any thought toward and endgame? Are the rebels in any kind of a shape to present some sort of credible transition government? What are the Alawites going to do? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Let's talk about the military first. They are in a chaotic mess, to be quite frank. It is lots of groups of rebels. They come together un some operations, they argue among themselves on others. It goes from, you know, secular, defected soldiers to downright jihadis with links to al-Qaida. And there is no real command structure. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: The political part of the opposition is trying to very quickly bring themselves together. They feel that momentum coming. I was in the town of Gaziantep on the Syrian border, it's in Turkey, and was able to meet with some of those political leaders, was able to cross the border and meet some more in Aleppo Province. This is where the financial capital is, Aleppo, a town that was four million. Many of those people now have left. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: That town is trying to organize itself, even trying to have an election over the next couple of weeks to have representatives from towns and villages, including Aleppo. There is already a transitional revolutionary council that has committees for humanitarian aid, for legal aid, for the military, for the police. But there's so many problems in setting up these local governments. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: In the few trips I've taken in the past couple of days inside Syria, the thing that's really striking is, for example, garbage. You know, you kind of forget that that's so important to run a town, and garbage is everywhere. And you really see it in the videos. Nobody's figured out how to do that yet. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: They are very busy ferrying people who have been wounded in these air attacks and artillery attacks. That takes up a great deal of time, to get people to field hospitals. Some smaller villages have been very good at standing up local governments. There's a town called Manbij(ph), and in Manbij, because it's a small town, they have three newspapers, they have a very good, working revolutionary committee that's running the town, but some of the larger places haven't quite gotten it yet. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And there's a real push to get this political structure together because I think the civilians are rightly worried that if they don't, then it's the rebels, it's the men with the guns who will have a larger say. NEAL CONAN, HOST: In the meantime, there are also considerable forces that are still in support of the government. And it has been the thought that the Alawite community, the minority in Syria but nevertheless very loyal to President Assad, who is of their membership, of their company, that they would fight this to the death. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: It is true. And over these 20 months, the external opposition that has come together has never been very good at reaching out to the Alawite community. I would say they have failed to reach out to the minorities in Syria who are concerned that they will not do well in a government that is controlled by Sunnis and what they see as very conservative religious Sunnis. They are very worried about it. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: This new opposition is trying to be a little better at reaching out to them, but still there is great concern in these communities for what will happen to them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And great concern in the region, too. You have Sunni power, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funneling arms and supplies to the rebels; the Shia power, Iran, which is supporting the government. Many questions about how far they will go to support their ally. Deborah Amos, as always, thank you very much. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Thank you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: More from the Wilson Center in just a moment. Stay with us. It's NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan at the Woodrow Wilson Center today in Washington, D.C. The president says it's his job to do more than one thing at once. In his second term, he'll have plenty of opportunities. From Iran to China to the Middle East, his foreign policy to-do list must run several pages, and that's to say nothing of the future crises we know nothing about. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So help us out. If you travel abroad, we want to hear from you. What's the problem you see the U.S. needs to address as a priority or an opportunity the U.S. needs to exploit? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. We'll also take questions from the audience here at the Wilson Center. NEAL CONAN, HOST: With a long list of vexing foreign policy problems, President Obama and a new secretary of state will have to plot their priorities carefully. Joining us now with some ideas about where to start: David Ignatius, associate editor and columnist for the Washington Post; and Robert Kagan, senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, author most recently of "The World America Made." And nice to have you both back on TALK OF THE NATION. DAVID IGNATIUS: Hi, Neal. ROBERT KAGAN: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And David, let me start with you. Reports this morning that the Obama administration is reconsidering its Syria policy. This is just where we left off. And with the now certainty of a second term, thinking about being more bold. DAVID IGNATIUS: Syria is one of the issues that the administration in effect put on hold. Late last summer, I read the administration, President Obama, kind of put a sign out on the White House lawn saying come back after November 6, and that was certainly true with Syria. What the administration is pondering is whether to take a more active role in shaping, supporting, even supplying, the Free Syrian Army, the military side, as it took a role in reshaping the political opposition. DAVID IGNATIUS: It was really through Secretary of State Clinton's pressure that feuding countries that have been supporting different factions in the political opposition, got their act together earlier this month in Doha, Qatar, and formed a new coalition of political organizations. DAVID IGNATIUS: As Deborah Amos said in that excellent report that preceded our part of the conversation, the opposition military, despite these recent victories, is a mess in terms of its command structure. So I think issue one for the administration is: How does the United States, working with its allies, empower leaders, they're called military councils in each of the major urban areas, so that they can exercise control over these many jihadist groups? DAVID IGNATIUS: This is a real revolution. So the fighters have come from the ground up. Each mosque, each neighborhood, each town forms its own battalion. And those battalions seek funding from wealthy people from the Gulf, typically, and they operate largely independently. Unless that's pulled together, if Bashar al-Assad falls, as seems increasingly likely, you may have a completely chaotic situation on the ground with each battalion going for itself, with the kind of chaotic militia-driven non-governance that we're seeing now in Libya. DAVID IGNATIUS: And I think the U.S. wants to focus on this as much thinking about after the fall of Bashar as getting to Bashar's fall. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Robert Kagan, as well, you know the - one of the concerns is if you supply effective weaponry to the opposition groups, that weaponry will fall into the hands of those jihadists we've been talking about. ROBERT KAGAN: Well, that's been the concern of the administration for a long time. I'm afraid, though, that, you know, the longer this has gone on, the greater the likelihood that the jihadists are going to be big forces. I think the only thing that I - one of the things that I worry about now is we have not seen the worst that Bashar has to deal out in terms of dealing with the population. ROBERT KAGAN: He is not Mubarak, and clearly the Syrian military is not quite the Egyptian military, which refused to fire on the people, ultimately, and whether Mubarak ordered it and they didn't do it or whether he wouldn't even order it, it's not clear. The Syrian air force certainly is already doing this. And I worry about this Internet blackout as a time when he may carry out things that we've haven't even begun to see yet, in which case I think that the United States and the world is going to carry a very heavy moral burden, and we will wind up being forced, as we were for instance after Srebrenica, to take action, maybe sooner. ROBERT KAGAN: And then we're not going to be talking about how many, you know, shoulder-fired anti-air missiles are in people's hands. We're going to be in a much bigger situation. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Are you talking about chemical weapons here? ROBERT KAGAN: No, I'm talking about the need to respond to massive slaughter that has just reached a stage that the world can't, that we can't and many others can't tolerate anymore. And then we need to start looking at options that don't take six or eight months, and we hope Bashar falls. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's step back just a little bit. Through the first Obama administration, there was criticism after the advent of the Arab spring that there was no coherence to the policy, it was this country this, this country that. You've got a situation where yes there's a new government in Egypt and a constitutional crisis there, a different situation in Libya, which seems to be still pretty chaotic; Bahrain, majority Shiite country where those people are advocating for their democratic rights, the United States aligned with the king there and with Saudi Arabia, his ally, Shiites there are (unintelligible)... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Should there be one clear and clearly articulated policy for all of these places that everybody understands? Do you go case by case? ROBERT KAGAN: Well, there's no such thing as perfect consistency in foreign policy. I think there should be an overall doctrine that we are trying to move all these regimes in the direction that their people clearly want them to go, and I think the days of dictatorship in the Arab world, which we'd gotten awfully used to, are clearly gone. ROBERT KAGAN: Now you obviously are going to use different tactics and different strategies in different countries, and we do have conflicting interests that guide us in a lot of different directions. But I don't think that's really the key issue. I wish honestly that the administration had even focused more on the policies that they said they were going to focus on, although I just want to say as a broad matter, second terms are often very productive terms for presidents. ROBERT KAGAN: They either start getting serious about things that they've been kicking down the road, they've learned from what they've been watching and are able to start implementing policy. So I'm - if you look at Bill Clinton's presidency, there's no question his second term was a lot more active and effective than his first time in foreign policy. ROBERT KAGAN: And so I'm hopeful that the Obama administration will now really begin to dig into some of these problems in a way that I don't think they really quite did in the first time. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well David Ignatius, in part because the State Department can sometimes be more tractable than Congress. DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, this administration needs to communicate more effectively with Congress to do everything that's on its agenda, and I think that will be the measure of whether President Obama has a successful second term: Is he the leader of his own party? Is he the leader of the Congress? Does he speak to the country and then to the world as a decisive leader? DAVID IGNATIUS: In foreign policy, what's striking to me is that he doesn't really have to worry a lot about framing the issues on the agenda. The issues are coming at him. The obvious ones coming at an accelerating speed are Syria, we've been talking about Syria. He needs a policy that's more coherent both to achieve the stated goal, the fall of Bashar al-Assad, but I think more important to think about what kind of governance you'll have in Syria and what to about the chemical weapons. DAVID IGNATIUS: The chemical weapons in Syria, when I hear the news about turning off the Internet, I worry that that's prelude to using these ghastly weapons. The United States has warned strongly about this. More importantly perhaps so has Russia. This is a red line the international community has drawn. DAVID IGNATIUS: Bashar al-Assad may go across that red line. What do we do next? Another problem coming at him fast is obviously Iran. We're in a period now when the U.S. needs to explore, perhaps through bilateral negotiations, whether there is a deal, whether you can see the shape of a deal. We could go on to other issues. But Obama in a sense has to respond quickly to things that are already in motion. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in on the conversation, again 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You just heard David Ignatius, associate editor, columnist for the Washington Post; Robert Kagan is also with us, senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. And let's get - let's see if we can get Mac(ph) on the line, and Mac's on the line with us from Phoenix. MAC: Hey, good afternoon, gentlemen. I just wanted to, you know, maybe chime in and add to the point about taking advantage of the very widespread goodwill of the Iranian population towards the U.S. in the context of the nuclear negotiations. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And... MAC: And how (unintelligible) the regime and speaking directly to the people, more public diplomacy. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robert Kagan, the - many have urged the president to take that role that Mac is talking about and try to outflank the Iranian government with its own people. ROBERT KAGAN: Well, you know, the administration has consistently, whenever it's wanted to move toward negotiations, considered those two policies to be diametrically opposed. You're either talking to the people and effectively encouraging them to either influence or maybe even oust their regime, or you are talking to the regime. ROBERT KAGAN: I'm not sure that there's a clear tradeoff. I don't know that you can't do both. But up until this point, that's the way it is. Now by the way, some people will say that the Iranian people love their nuclear weapons too. I'm more skeptical of that. I actually believe we'd have an easier time dealing with a different kind of government on this issue than we're having with the current regime in Iran. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, David Ignatius, whether or not they love their country, the belief is that an attack by the United States and/or Israel would ruin whatever support the Iranian people have for the United States. DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, I think that certainly the regime would have a better chance of consolidating public support if it was attacked, and that's one of the strongest reasons against an attack, unless it's absolutely necessary. The only - it is literally the last resort before Iran becomes a nuclear power. What's striking to me about the public mood in Iran now as best you can tell from reading translations of the Iranian press is that the idea of talking with the United States of Iran entering into a real discussion about the nuclear issue and about key regional issues as well, that's now accepted. DAVID IGNATIUS: Every faction that I see in Iran talks about - talk about what should be discussed, what the limits should be, but there once was a taboo not long ago - a taboo against this idea of talking to the great Satan. And I think we've entered into a different era, and so I regard that is as in itself positive. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a question from here in the audience at The Woodrow Wilson Center. PAULETTE LEE: Thank you very much. My name is Paulette Lee(ph). I'm a communications consultant here in the D.C. area. My question is, gentlemen, how do you see the United States' efforts to prevent Palestine from having any seat or any status in the U.N. as moving the peace process forward? Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The United - thank you very much for the question. The United States voted against that at the General Assembly today and was among those who were outvoted, David Ignatius? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, the simple answer would be I see that policy as unsuccessful, that the U.S. has tried to prevent what happened today. Increasingly, it's tried halfheartedly more for form's sake than anything else. I think the question that we're asking as journalists here in Washington - I'm sure the administration is asking - is can this act that lists the status of Abu Mazen, the leader of the Palestinian authority... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mahmoud Abbas, yeah. DAVID IGNATIUS: Mahmoud Abbas is his real name. The present - does this augmentation of the status reopen the path toward negotiations between Fatah, the organization he represents, perhaps joined with Hamas and Israel in order to have a platform for going further. And if that's so, then today's vote will be seen as a good thing. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's David Ignatius of The Washington Post. Also with us, Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, author most recently of "The World America Made." You're listening to part of The National Conversation, a joint project between NPR and The Woodrow Wilson Center, and this is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Robert Kagan, back on that same point. Given Hamas' political victory in the war between itself and Fatah in the recent conflict with Israel, does the move at the United Nations today and whatever position the United States takes on Palestinian status in terms of the PLO, does it make a difference? ROBERT KAGAN: Well, first of all, I'm not sure I agree that it was a complete victory for Hamas. I mean, one of the things that happened in the course of that conflict, Hamas clearly was trying to rally a changing Arab world behind it. And I think, for instance, President Morsi, in Egypt, said I am not going to be dragged into a conflict with Israel over the - over what you're doing. I'm not going to break the treaty arrangements that we have. And in fact, he helped achieve a cease-fire. So I'm not sure that Hamas accomplished everything they wanted. ROBERT KAGAN: Now, the problem of I think - or give Hamas the benefit of what's just happened is I think that although many who voted in the U.N., like Europeans, for Palestine's resolution believed and were hoping that they were helping Abbas. But if the result is it looks like the reason this happened is because of Hamas' attacks in Gaza against Israel, then it strengthens Hamas. And I think that at this point negotiating with Hamas is not an easy thing to do. ROBERT KAGAN: I mean, they will be - it will be the first time that that a group that has not renounced terror, has not renounced the use of force against Israel is supposed to be engaging in negotiations with Israel. That's not an easy thing to accomplish. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we have this email from Hannah(ph) which says two words and a lot of exclamation points: Mali crisis. This, of course, a reference to the situation in that northwest African country which is - the northern part of which has been taken over first in a Tuareg rebellion, and then it's been taken over by Islamist factions there who were forcing out the Tuaregs as well. Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, today called for U.N. military action in Mali. David Ignatius, how important is this? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, three words in response: don't know much. DAVID IGNATIUS: I wish I knew more about the situation in Mali. I haven't been there. Most reluctant to comment on places that I don't know. It is obvious that the international community, including the U.S., is increasingly concerned about the growth of Islamic radicalism in Mali. And generally in that region, there's some discussion of whether this kind of falling domino effect after the fall of Gadhafi in Libya. You just had a lot of seepage of weapons and people south. The U.S. in recent years in dealing with African problems has turned to a combination of African Union forces, which have had, I would say, a different success, and the new AFRICOM, the command that we stood up, it isn't actually based in Africa but has responsibility for that, it's just clear that the war against Islamic radicalism is now going into Africa big time. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a question from the microphone here at The Woodrow Wilson Center. ELVIS COHN: Hello. Thanks. My name is Elvis Cohn(ph). I'm a federal employee here in the D.C. area. My question is on the so-called war on drugs. It is an understatement to say that it has been a failure over the years. And my question is, does the Obama administration see an opportunity here to move into a different way? Many leaders in Latin America are calling for a change in the policies, moving towards some sort of legalization. Do we see an opportunity here? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robert Kagan, Mexico's president-elect was just in town. ROBERT KAGAN: I think that, you know, this is an ongoing problem. It has - it's having particularly destructive effects in Central America where, you know, the crime is just out of sight. But I guess this is where I would start to say there are only so many things the president is going to be able to do. And we have mentioned, too, the other big decisions coming up is - on Afghanistan, which is going to have major implications for the president's second term and what happens in that second term. And we haven't even gotten to Asia yet. So, you know, everyone would like us to focus on the war on drugs and come up with a clever policy. But I'm just not going to - I don't think there is going to be a lot of bad blood expended on that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You may be right, but it's a war on our border which has taken the lives of tens of thousands. ROBERT KAGAN: For a very long time. NEAL CONAN, HOST: When we come back, more of with our guests, David Ignatius and Robert Kagan. We promise to get (unintelligible) the Middle East and talk about some of those other parts of the world as well. We'd like to hear from you, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. Stay with us. We're in a special broadcast, part of the national conversation today from the Woodrow Wilson Center. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Right now, we're discussing the foreign policy agenda for President Obama's second term. If you travel abroad, we want to hear your suggestion. What's a problem the U.S. needs to address or an opportunity the U.S. ought to exploit? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also weigh in on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. And we'll also take questions from the audience here at the Wilson Center. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Our guests: Robert Kagan, author most recently of "The World America Made" and senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, and David Ignatius, associate editor and columnist at the Washington Post. We have a question from the audience here at the Wilson Center. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Thank you. Yet another area. Is it time for the U.S. to reconcile with Cuba? And can the president actually do this without support of Congress and especially the House of Representatives? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robert Kagan, the election is over. The president does have a freer hand. Is Cuba one of the places where he can change policy? ROBERT KAGAN: I mean, I think in theory, yes. I think, first of all, you know, the very powerful Cuban-American community is shifting itself as generations sort of move on and younger generations come forward. And I think you've got, you know, some - you've got a very creative and thoughtful Republican senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, who takes great interest in this. But at the end of the day, and this is the thing, it really does depend a little bit on what the Cuban government does. The Cuban government has to be willing to show some intention of loosening up its grip on that society. I think if it does do so, you can see some steps in the United States to start easing the embargo and trying to start moving toward eventually, if there's reciprocal steps, some kind of moving toward normalization with Cuba. But it really does require that the Cuban government be willing to do so. ROBERT KAGAN: I mean, what we've seen in Burma, it didn't just happen - the United States didn't just lift sanctions. The Burmese government took some steps to give some hope that they were going to change. The Cuban government will need to do the same thing. NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Ignatius, there was a new generation of leaders in Burma. Do we have to await the same in Havana? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, certainly we need to await a post-Castro era when there's a younger leadership. On this question of whether the president should, you know, take a strong stance on normalizing relationships with Cuba or deal with the war on drugs, I would hope that the president would think strategically, much as he did to such success in his campaign. And by that, I mean identifying a limited number of issues and going after them one by one and building from success to success. I think that's what leads to effective foreign policy. When you have everything kind of thrown up against the wall in the first year - and we saw a little bit of that, I think, in Obama's first year both in domestic and foreign policy - what you get is, I think, a kind of loss of momentum, loss of clarity. DAVID IGNATIUS: So if the president can do his first job, which is win a big debt package fight on the Hill, then move to the Iran negotiations, which are topic A in foreign policy, move towards something with Israel and the Palestinians, move towards something clear with Syria, you know, one by one, you might begin to see some real progress. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So after July, he should be free. DAVID IGNATIUS: After, you know, this is the... DAVID IGNATIUS: We'll find out just how strategic a person Obama is in policy making as opposed to politics and how effective a leader he is. DAVID IGNATIUS: ...out just how strategic President Obama is as - in policymaking, as opposed to politics, and how effective a leader he is over these next four years. But, you know, I think the next few months will tell us whether we're going to have something more systematic than what we saw the first term. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Robert Kagan, if there's been a vision expressed about that by the president, it has been the pivot to the Pacific. ROBERT KAGAN: And as this conversation and every other conversation I've had over the last month since the pivot was announced has demonstrated, before you pivot, you finish talking about the Middle East. And as soon as you pivot, you go back to talking about the Middle East. ROBERT KAGAN: I mean, there was nothing more ironic, again, than the fact that the president, on his big trip to Asia, spent most of his term talking about Gaza, and the secretary of state had to break off the trip to go - heading back to Gaza. And I think this is going to continue to be the case. We are going to continue to be dragged back to the Middle East. ROBERT KAGAN: Now, what's unfortunate about that is - and I was in a conference in the Middle East where even people in the Middle East were saying: Can't the United States walk and chew gum at the same time? And we are clearly going to have to do that, because Asia is important. The president is right to put enormous emphasis on it. The president is right to involve the United States more deeply in the region. Secretary Clinton and her very capable Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell have done that up until now. But it's going to be difficult to sustain. And it's going to be difficult with a new secretary and a new team at the State Department. And it's going to be difficult in tight budget circumstances. And it's going to be difficult when the Middle East does keep dragging back our attention. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get another question from the audience here at the Wilson Center. SHAY HESTER: Good afternoon. My name is Shay Hester(ph). And I visited my daughter and her husband in Chiang Mai, Thailand. They were there working with Burmese refugees whose lives have been put on hold for many decades. My question is: What is the Obama administration doing, or should they be doing to help these refugees return to Myanmar and get on with their lives? NEAL CONAN, HOST: And David Ignatius, we've seen the president visit - the first president to visit Myanmar, also known as Burma. He was there briefly and, of course, met with the opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, as well. But some questioned whether he has gone to far too fast. DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, the one thing you can say, I think, is that the U.S. has built up some credibility and leverage with the government in Burma and Myanmar, which ought to be useful in dealing with this refugee problem. Refugee flows, in my experience, are one of the hardest problems to deal with. People just get settled. Think about how long it's going to take to get Afghan refugees who are in Pakistan back into Afghanistan. It's going to be a generation, and that may be true in this case. DAVID IGNATIUS: But I think the Myanmar-Burma policy has been carefully handled. You know, if you're looking for real successes for Secretary Clinton in the first term, as she gets ready to leave, I'd say this would be high on the list. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is also the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The combat role for the United State is supposed to end, scheduled to end in 2014. How many troops between now and then are kept? How many troops after that are kept? And there is still the lesson of what we have wrought in Iraq after withdrawal from that situation. But, again, if there's been one consistent in the Obama administration, has been to withdraw from Iraq and complete the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. ROBERT KAGAN: Yes. And, of course, this is one of those decisions that's not going to wait. He's going to have to make a decision in the next few weeks about how quickly to draw down the forces in Afghanistan. And there were certainly some significant players in the administration who would like to draw down very rapidly, and much more rapidly than the military commanders on the scene believe is appropriate. And so we'll see what - who wins that argument. ROBERT KAGAN: But if we do draw down rapidly, we're then going to test the proposition as to whether Afghanistan really can hold in the absence of, you know, a sufficient number of U.S. forces. And if it can't, we're going to start facing - dealing with the consequences of that. And I think that it's very easy to say, let's get out of Afghanistan. ROBERT KAGAN: I think we are going to - if nothing else - and people have been talking about this openly. If you care about what's going on in Pakistan, you're going to need to keep American troops in Afghanistan. That is the base from which the drones fly that allow the United States and this administration to attack terrorist bases along the border. ROBERT KAGAN: So then the question is going to be: Well, how many troops do you need to keep in place to do that? I'm prepared to predict that we are not going to be out of Afghanistan, unless you want to redefine what a combat role is to include upwards of 30,000 troops by 2014. NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Ignatius, a lot of people will say this is going to be critical for the president's legacy. This is his war now. DAVID IGNATIUS: It is his war. This was the war where he was going to refocus America's energy, get away from the bad war in Iraq. He did add 30,000 additional troops. Those are the troops that are now come out. And he has to decide what, going forward, is the commitment. DAVID IGNATIUS: Like Bob Kagan, I think that some continuing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan - both on the counterterrorism side, to have bases to go after people who want to kill you and me and a lot of other people - is important. But I think equally important is the political transition. And I'd love to see the administration put more emphasis - as it thinks about taking the combat troops out - on political structures and accommodations that can either prevent a civil war or reduce the destabilizing effects of the kind of sorting out that's going to happen in Afghanistan. And I think that's the thing they haven't done and need to get more serious about. NEAL CONAN, HOST: A question from the audience here at the Wilson Center. IBRAHIM HUSSEIN: Good afternoon. My name is Ibrahim Hussein(ph). I'm an Egyptian-American, retired here in Washington, D.C. I like to start by saying, last January, I went back to Cairo to join the celebration of the first anniversary of the revolution. It was so wonderful that people who did not want into politics - from the cab drivers to the college professor - are all talking about democracy and freedom and human rights. And it is very sad for me to see what's happening now. IBRAHIM HUSSEIN: I have - in terms of the comment about strategic - that's what I came to say, the strategic direction for U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. policymaker, they need to realize difference between two things. One of them is Islam. Well, I'm born Muslim. Islam, all over the world, is a peaceful, loving, very much similar to other great religions. IBRAHIM HUSSEIN: And the difference between Islam and political Islam in making our policy and defining what you want to go do, and what do you want to do, we need to make sure we are not touching the big base of Islam. And we are only dealing with people who are using Islam for political objectives, that including the terrorists, the extremists, in my opinion, the Saudis. I mean, they are exploiting a great religion for immediate gain. And U.S. policymaker need to be aware of this distinction and promote the first and try to develop a strategy to with the latter. But the fact that we have election every two years makes it difficult. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Robert Kagan, I hate to drag you bag to the Middle East. ROBERT KAGAN: Yeah, well, that's OK. ROBERT KAGAN: It's just - that's what's happening these days. I mean, look. The greatest - I mean, the greatest sort of laboratory of this whole tension and experiment is Egypt, where you have, you know, an avowed political Islamist group which won overwhelming. It is a testament to the, in my view, the failure of American policy over a couple of decades, that we played into Mubarak's strategy of weakening liberal forces in Egypt and objectively strengthening the Brotherhood by the way Mubarak handled his own dictatorship, and we tolerated it so that when the forces were unleashed, the Brotherhood was the best organized. The liberals were the most scattered. And we're now paying the consequence for that. ROBERT KAGAN: As a practical matter, however, the - Morsi won the election. The Brotherhood won the election overwhelmingly. The United States should be dealing with a democratically elected government. And I think, as we would in - with any government, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, we also need to do our best to hold them to the real standard of democracy, which is not just elections. It's about supporting individual rights. It's protecting minorities. It's protecting women. And we need to put, literally, our money where our mouth is in that regard. And that would be true whether it's an Islamist or not an Islamist government. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about foreign policy in a second Obama administration. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. And, David Ignatius, let me hit another part of that from our question, and that is the role of Saudi Arabia. This is a despotic king - monarchy, a gerontocracy, important to the United States for any number of reasons, if for no other reason, its opposition to Iran. DAVID IGNATIUS: Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, strategic meaning that it has all that oil. And we may not need it as much in future years, but other countries will. I do think - when I visit Saudi Arabia, I'm reminded that while it's certainly an authoritarian regime, not a place where I'd want to live, it is seen by enough of its citizens - a majority of its citizens, it appears to me - as legitimate. King Abdullah is an old man, and he's not making decisions all that effectively, people say. But he is pretty well liked and respected by a majority of his subjects. We need to remember that. DAVID IGNATIUS: So change is coming to Saudi Arabia. What I hear people worrying about is the regime is so old and creaky, it's just not getting the job done. But as near as I can tell, it's still seen as legitimate by enough of its citizens that I don't see a revolution in Saudi Arabia around the corner as we've seen in Syria. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We just have a couple of minutes left. And I'd like you both to step off a cliff, not the fiscal cliff, but perhaps the lift - the cliff of what we actually know. One thing, two things, three things are going to happen over the next four years that none of us in this room have anticipated or talked about. Robert Kagan, is there some part of the world, some issue - global warming, climate change, whatever - that keeps you up at night? ROBERT KAGAN: Many things keep me up at night. I've got two teenagers that keep me up at night. But - and this is always the part of the discussion where we say, OK, there are these things that are going to happen that we don't know about. What are they? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah. ROBERT KAGAN: And I don't know. No, for me, there is plenty of known-knowns that are out there that keep me up at night. You know, David has a hopeful view of the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Iran. I, myself, am dubious that there is any deal that we and they are going to agree on. And that includes whatever the Obama administration may propose, which is going to lead to this very difficult decision. I think Afghanistan is in a very dangerous state. I think Syria is going to get much worse before it gets better. I think we are facing a kind of long-term challenge from China, which can have short-term effects on us. So, for me, that's plenty to stay up awake at night over. NEAL CONAN, HOST: David Ignatius, I guess we'll turn to you for comic relief. DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, Bob Kagan covered the gloom and doom patrol admirably. Those are the things that we should worry about. Just to focus on thing that Bob talked about, because we haven't really covered it adequately, we have a new leadership in China under soon-to-be President Xi Jinping, now head of the Communist Party. And this new leadership - contrary to expectations - is not as inclusive of reform-minded people as a lot of U.S. analysts expected. And there is a danger with all of the problems of corruption, regional difference in China that a very nationalist policy will be taken, which this new leadership will try to unite by having external enemies, including the United States, including Japan. That scares me. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we could have a new nationalist government in Japan, as well. So we'll have to see where that goes. Thank you both, very much. And we'll chuckle all the way to the exits. So Robert Kagan and David Ignatius, joining us here at the Wilson Center. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tomorrow, it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington.

As President Barack Obama prepares to enter a second term, he faces a host of foreign policy issues. Syria presents an immediate crisis, China poses a strategic challenge and tensions with Iran continue to escalate. Deb Amos, foreign correspondent, NPR David Ignatius, associate editor and columnist, Washington Post Robert Kagan, senior fellow in foreign policy, Brookings Institution

Während sich Präsident Barack Obama auf seine zweite Amtszeit vorbereitet, steht er vor einer Vielzahl außenpolitischer Probleme. Syrien stellt eine unmittelbare Krise dar, China stellt eine strategische Herausforderung dar und die Spannungen mit dem Iran eskalieren weiter. Deb Amos, Auslandskorrespondentin, NPR\nDavid Ignatius, Mitherausgeber und Kolumnist, Washington Post\nRobert Kagan, leitende Forscher von der Außenpolitik, Brookings Institution

在巴拉克·奥巴马总统进入第二个任期之际，他面临着一系列外交政策问题。叙利亚危机迫在眉睫，中国对美形成战略挑战，与伊朗的紧张局势继续升级。国家公共广播电台驻外记者黛比·阿莫斯，大卫·伊格内修斯，《华盛顿邮报》副编辑兼专栏作家，布鲁金斯学会外交政策高级研究员罗伯特·卡根

RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Our business news starts with the cause of a fatal accident in the workplace. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: A federal safety board says cost-cutting and faulty equipment contributed to an accident at a BP refinery in Texas last year that killed 15 people. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: NPR's Frank Langfitt reports. FRANK LANGFITT: BP's Texas City refinery was starting up a unit last year when a tower erupted like a geyser, raining down a highly flammable liquid. The subsequent explosion not only killed 15 workers, but injured 180 others. It was the nation's worst industrial accident in more than a decade. FRANK LANGFITT: The U.S. Chemical Safety Board says the tower overflowed after a measuring device failed to show the liquid was building up to dangerous levels. Don Holmstrom, the board's lead investigator, says the company knew about the problem beforehand. Mr. DON HOLMSTROM (Lead Investigator, Chemical Safety Board): They identified that this particular piece of equipment was troublesome, it needed repair, and they intended to repair it after the startup. FRANK LANGFITT: But the explosion occurred before the company fixed it, according to the safety board. BP acknowledges that the accident could have been prevented, but Ronnie Chappell, a company spokesman, insists the equipment was not a factor. Mr. RONNIE CHAPPELL (Spokesman, BP): And with our own investigation report, we indicated that the equipment that was in place was operating correctly, that it was in good shape. FRANK LANGFITT: In its report, the safety board said staff reductions at the refinery also contributed to the accident. FRANK LANGFITT: Frank Langfitt, NPR News, Washington.

Faulty equipment and staff reductions contributed to an accident at BP's Texas City refinery last year, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board finds in a preliminary report. Fifteen people were killed, and another 100 injured, making it the nation's worst industrial accident in over a decade.

Fehlerhafte Ausrüstung und Personalabbau trugen zu einem Unfall in der BP-Raffinerie in Texas City im vergangenen Jahr bei, so das U.S. Chemikaliensicherheits- und Gefahrenuntersuchungsamt in einem vorläufigen Bericht. Fünfzehn Menschen kamen dabei ums Leben, weitere 100 wurden verletzt, was den Unfall zum schlimmsten Industrieunfall seit über einem Jahrzehnt machte.

美国化学安全和危害调查委员会在一份初步报告中发现，去年英国石油公司德克萨斯城炼油厂发生的一起事故是由于设备故障和人员减少造成的。15人死亡，100人受伤，这是十多年来美国最严重的工业事故。

ROBERT SIEGEL: As NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson reports, witness after witness failed to connect Mubarak or his interior minister to the fatal shootings of protestors earlier this year. SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON: What prosecutors expect to hear from these high-ranking officials is unclear. But the summonses have renewed hope in lawyers representing Egyptians who want to see Mubarak and his former interior minister Habib al-Adly convicted. They say the judge's action proves that despite the flimsiness of the prosecution's case, the court is taking the charges seriously. HODA NASRALLAH: (Foreign language spoken) SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON: That officer, a police captain, and others who have testified say they received no orders from on high to shoot to kill or to use live ammunition against the protestors. But the captain contradicted an earlier affidavit when he testified that he only learned that live ammunition had been used from TV reports. HODA NASRALLAH: (Foreign language spoken) SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON: Outside the court compound, the father of one 10-year-old boy who was fatally shot was also unhappy. MOHAMED ABDEL FATTAH: (Foreign language spoken) SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON: Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, NPR News, Cairo

The trial of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak continued in Cairo Wednesday. Witnesses for the prosecution failed to connect Mubarak or his interior minister to the fatal shootings during protests that led to Mubarak's ouster.

Der Prozess gegen den ehemaligen ägyptischen Präsidenten Hosni Mubarak wurde am Mittwoch in Kairo fortgesetzt. Zeugen der Anklage konnten Mubarak oder seinen Innenminister nicht mit den tödlichen Schießereien während der Proteste in Verbindung bringen, die zu Mubaraks Amtsenthebung führten.

埃及前总统穆巴拉克的审判星期三继续在开罗进行。控方证人未能将穆巴拉克或其内政部长与导致穆巴拉克下台的抗议活动期间发生的致命枪击事件联系起来。

ANDREA SEABROOK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Andrea Seabrook. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Start your engines. It's just about the summer travel season, and the average price of gas has topped $3.60 a gallon. Now, to fill up your tank, it could cost 50, 60 even $70. The record prices have set off a political scramble for solutions. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Republican John McCain was the first to suggest suspending the federal gas tax this summer. Democrat Hillary Clinton jumped on board. She proposed a way to finance it. Senator HILLARY CLINTON (Democrat, New York; Presidential Candidate): I want the oil companies to pay the federal gas tax this summer. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: The Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, says he won't go there. Senator BARACK OBAMA (Democrat, Illinois; Presidential Candidate): This is what passes for leadership in Washington: phony ideas calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Later in the show, we'll look at how these soaring gas prices may actually be changing America's car culture. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: First, though, to what are the challenges facing folks who plan to fly this summer. Getting through airport security has been a hassle since 9/11. But checkpoints are changing, and I took a trip out to the airport to see the latest. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: I'm standing in Terminal B at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and while I'd love to hop on one of these planes back here and jet off to Mexico's sunny beaches, I have other reasons to be here. This is where the Transportation Security Administration has just rolled out its newest security procedures. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: It's a kinder, gentler security checkpoint, with one maybe unnerving change. But we'll get to that in a minute. Here to explain is Christopher White. He's the spokesperson for the TSA and he joins me here at Terminal B. How are you, sir? Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): I'm great. Thanks for having us. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Before we get to the unnerving part, you know, your average checkpoint that we look at, there are people trying to take off their shoes and pull their laptops out of their bags. And instead, what I see here is soft lighting - blue; they're blue lights. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): (Unintelligible) the most recognizable thing is lights and music, it's honestly probably the least important. What the biggest different is here is a calm environment. We have wireless whisper, but we can communicate very much like your local retailer at the Gap. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: I see. So, they all have a thing in their ear and they're talking to each other. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): Right. That allows them to call for assistance, to make other calls around the checkpoint without screaming, bag check, you know, all the things that raise the stress level at the checkpoint. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Am I hearing birds? Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): You are hearing birds. We have… Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): There's a random selection of sound. It's not really designed to capture your attention. The birds are probably the most captivating element of the soundtrack. (Unintelligible) for most people is a very calm place, so this is a good example. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Feeling soothed yet? Christopher White and I snake through the line. It's roped off by wide blue ribbons. Along the way, little signs have printed biographies of security officers with nice, smiling pictures. It's only fair that I get to know them a bit. They're about to know me pretty well. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Unidentified Woman: Make sure you hold onto your boarding pass. You will need your boarding pass. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Time to grab a bin and empty our pockets. Shoes off too, but no more balancing on one foot. There are benches here, finally. Set everything on the rollers and it's automatically whisked forward to the scanner. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): The way the conveyor belt is set up - it's about ten feet long where you have several opportunities to grab bins. So, no longer does the business traveler have to wait behind that family of five who's grabbing 17 bins, puts a stroller and then seven backpacks in. All this stuff. They can bypass them, go directly into the checkpoint. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Oh, the bins bring themselves back without a security person rushing back. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): It's part of the bin return system, and that enables our officers to focus on security and not schlepping 20,000 bins a day. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: You guys learned something from the bowling alley. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): We did. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): We took our lesson carefully. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Now, it's time for my scan - no, not in your average walkthrough metal detector. This checkpoint of the future has what's called a whole body imager. It looks like a Plexiglas phone booth with a scanner that moves around the person inside. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): It uses radio waves, harmless radio waves, to bounce off the skin. It can see through clothes but cannot see through skin. It allows us to conduct a very high level of screening without ever physically touching a passenger. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Now, wait a second. You can see through clothes but not through skin, which means you're going to see me without any clothes on if I go in that. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): Well, the image itself looks more like a robotic image, almost like a catsuit. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: I told you this was going to be unnerving. I step into the booth, raise my arms like I'm going to do a pirouette and that's it. I step back out again. Now, let's see that picture. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): So, we're entering the remote viewing location. It's separate from the checkpoint and it's off to the side where no one at the checkpoint can see the image, no one in this room can see the checkpoint. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: That is me. You know, it's not like you can see a naked person by any means but you can see through the clothes. What are you looking for on the body there? Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): We're looking for any items that may be hidden on the person. So, today, to get to an issue where someone alarms the metal detector, they get a pat down. Typically they may be touched all over the body. Passengers greatly favor not being touched, and we totally understand that. So, by introducing whole body imagers, we can see things without touching people. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Well, you sure can see the underwires of my bra. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): Well, it's interesting that you say that because intel and news reports have shown recently terrorists are using more and more female bombers. So, it's very important that we look at those areas, and the underwire is a really good area to actually hide potential threat items, and then we can also see anything else hidden in there. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Officials say the system works while still protecting travelers' privacy. The face and other body features are blurred. The picture is automatically deleted, they say, once they scan the next traveler. And they assure me that this computer, with my semi-naked image on it, has no access to the Internet. No posting this shot on Flickr. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Christopher White and I venture back into the blue lights and bird calls at the front of the checkpoint. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: So, the question I have is, this all seems to be taking down people's stress level, there's more of your own pace and this sort of thing. How does it make me safer as an airline traveler? Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): It makes you safer because by lowering the anxiety level at the checkpoint, people with hostile intent stand out. So, if everyone's stressed out, it's great camouflage for a terrorist. In a calm, relaxed environment, the terrorist stick out. They stick out much better, allowing our behavior detection officers to really see them quickly. It's a win-win for everyone. It's good for the passenger, great for security. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Christopher White, thank you so much. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): Well, thanks for taking the time with us. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: Christopher White is a spokesperson for the Transportation Security Administration. The agency just introduced a new security system in one terminal at BWI Airport featuring relaxing music, including birds, a conveyor belt for bins, and a full body scanner. Thanks again for the tour. Mr. CHRISTOPHER WHITE (Spokesperson, Transportation Security Administration): Thank you. ANDREA SEABROOK, host: If you'd like to see my picture from the whole body imager, don't even think of going to NPR.org. It ain't there.

This past week, the Transportation Security Administration introduced new security measures at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, including a controversial "whole-body scanner." The scanner provides guards with an image that strips away a traveler's clothing, revealing everything that person is carrying — and their naked bodies. TSA spokesperson Christopher White shows Andrea Seabrook how it works.

In der vergangenen Woche hat die Transportsicherheitsbehörde neue Sicherheitsmaßnahmen am Baltimore-Washington internationalen Flughafen eingeführt, darunter einen umstrittenen \"Ganzkörperscanner\". Der Scanner liefert dem Sicherheitspersonal ein Bild, das die Kleidung eines Reisenden entfernt und alles zeigt, was die Person bei sich trägt - und ihren nackten Körper. TSA-Sprecher Christopher White zeigt Andrea Seabrook, wie er funktioniert.

在过去的一周里，运输安全管理局在巴尔的摩-华盛顿国际机场推出了新的安全措施，包括一个有争议的“全身扫描仪。”扫描仪提供给警卫得图像将除去旅客的衣服，露出这个人所携带的一切——和他们赤裸的身体。运输安全管理局发言人克里斯托弗·怀特向安德里亚西布鲁克展示它是如何工作的。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: A group of self-proclaimed militia members was acquitted this week on charges connected to their armed takeover of the Malheur Federal Wildlife Refuge. A federal jury decided on Thursday that brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as five others, are not guilty of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs during their 41-day long standoff in January and February. They were also acquitted of illegal possession of firearms and theft of government property. Jurors were deadlocked on one charge. The brothers had argued they were exercising their right to civil disobedience. The ruling was shocking to many, especially those who fear the decision will set a dangerous precedent for those who want to use federal lands or disagree with current land management practices. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But we wanted to check in with another person involved in this conversation. We spoke with Charlotte Rodrique of the Burns Paiute Tribe earlier this year about the tribe's opposition to the standoff. Charlotte Rodrique was tribal chair at the time, so we thought it would be a good time to check back in with her. And we reached her at her home. Ms. Charlotte, thank you so much for speaking with us once again. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: Thank you. I'm pleased to be able to shed some light on how I feel as a tribal person. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: How do you feel about all this? You know, I'd love to hear what your reaction was. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: I'm disappointed with the outcome. I feel like it empowers those that want to misbehave to act outside the law. You know, I do respect the federal courts. I do respect the process. But I was just in shock. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Well, I just want to remind people, for those who may not recall, that the occupation took place in land that the Burns Paiute Tribe considers to be sacred land. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located on what would have been the corner of the original Malheur Reservation. And it's always been acknowledged by the people who established the refuge that the land basically was ours. And, you know, one of the things that really disturbs me is that we haven't utilized the refuge since the occupation. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: How did you use it before? CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: The land itself was a traditional wintering ground for the various bands of Paiute people in this area, which includes Northern California and northern Nevada and southwestern Idaho. And we take our youth down and talk about our history. And we have groups of youth that go out and they gather the tulles, and they make various egg-gathering baskets and just get a taste of what it was like to be a tribal person 150 years ago. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And you haven't been able to do any of those things? CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: You know, we haven't had a chance to go in all summer because of the intimidation. I think they lost three employees, and they haven't been replaced. And people are reluctant to come into the area. You know, federal employees transferring in are afraid to be at the refuge, I guess. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right around the same time this was happening, more than 100 protesters were arrested in protests over the Dakotah pipeline Access project this week. And maybe people will remember that a lot of tribal persons really from all over the country have been protesting this project. I assume that other people from the Burns Paiute Tribe have been participating. And I just wonder how you think about that. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: We had tribal members that went from here to North Dakota to stand in in support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And I got pictures and calls from one of our former tribal council members, and she said that they had the North Dakota National Guards in full riot gear blocking entry to the state capitol. They were on the steps in front of the group, and she said, I don't think anybody's got any weapons. But they act like we're going to attack something. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: And we kind of laughed, and I told her - I said, well, what's there? And she said, well, we've got a couple of drums set up. And I said, well, maybe they're afraid you're going to hit them with a drumstick or something. She said, no, they're just so threatening. If somebody makes a wrong move or something, what's to stop them from shooting us all down? CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: It's funny that when Native Americans speak up or protest, right away, you've got an armed confrontation with the military. And it's really hard to understand the discrepancy and the way the country treats the minorities. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That was Charlotte Rodrique. She is the former chair of the Burns Paiute Tribe. She's still active in tribal affairs. And we reached her at her home in Oregon. Charlotte Rodrique, thank you so much for speaking with us once again. CHARLOTTE RODRIQUE: You're welcome, and I hope what little words I had have meaning for some of our people out there.

Charlotte Rodrique of the Burns Paiute Tribe says she's "disappointed" by the acquittal of armed men who occupied an Oregon wildlife refuge earlier this year, and worries about the precedent it sets.

Charlotte Rodrique vom Burns Paiute Tribe sagt, sie sei \"enttäuscht\" über den Freispruch bewaffneter Männer, die Anfang dieses Jahres ein Naturschutzgebiet in Oregon besetzten hatten, und macht sich Sorgen über den Präzedenzfall, der dadurch geschaffen wird.

伯恩斯派尤特部落的夏洛特·罗德里克说，她对今年早些时候占领俄勒冈野生动物保护区的武装人员被判无罪感到“失望”，并担心这会开创先例。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: When Hurricane Dorian ripped across the northern Bahamas last month, it destroyed homes and lives, and it shattered the local economy. As the recovery from the storm continues, business owners in the area worst hit - Abaco - are debating how to rebuild and if it even makes sense to do so. NPR's Jason Beaubien reports. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Driving up Front Street along the water in Marsh Harbour, the head of the chamber of commerce, Ken Hutton, points to the various piles of rubble and recounts what they used to be. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: I mean, were there shops in, like, these empty lots... KEN HUTTON: Yeah. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: ...That we're looking at over here? KEN HUTTON: This used to be a big liquor store - flattened with a boat on top. That was a marina down there, a repair place. This was a print shop here, a real estate agent. I mean, it's just - it literally is like a bomb went off. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: The second story of a seaside restaurant sits more than a hundred yards inland. Some businesses weren't just turned to piles of debris; they're simply gone. KEN HUTTON: This was a little business my 25-year-old daughter had called Calypso Coffee. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: The entire front of the shop is ripped away, and the wooden building leans precariously towards the street. KEN HUTTON: Now my daughter is in Nassau. She's got no job. She's got a little 5-year-old boy, who is the light of my life. But she's got nowhere to go. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: What she does have is thousands of dollars in debt from a business that now lies in ruins. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Away from what used to be the commercial and tourist waterfront, Michael Jones is one of the only businesses that's up and running around Marsh Harbour. And he's doing it without a roof. Jones is the owner of Abaco Battery and Tires, a combination laundromat, convenience store, gas station and tire repair shop. MICHAEL JONES: We are hoping that we can salvage some of the equipment and get back up and running. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Jones is doing a brisk business fixing flat tires from all the hurricane debris. He's also brought in a mobile fuel tank to sell gasoline. A month after Dorian, there's still no electricity or running water. His current operation runs off a noisy portable generator. Jones says his two biggest problems right now are labor - because so many people have left - and a lack of supplies to outfit his shop. MICHAEL JONES: We're looking at bringing in equipment. I know that, you know, a lot of the shipping companies are really backed up with a lot of freight because a lot of people are bringing in stuff. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Other shop owners aren't so confident of what their future holds. Troy Sims built up a solid business on Abaco as a locksmith before Hurricane Dorian. He's just made a new set of keys for a minivan that's sitting in a pile of debris near downtown. And now he's rushing to pick the lock of a car someone left at the airport when they evacuated. Sims is incredibly busy right now. TROY SIMS: Mostly opening safes and making keys for cars. Lots of safes are being burglarized. And the owners can't get into them, or the saltwater has just corroded everything they can't get it open anyway. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: But he can see that this boom in post-storm business isn't going to last. So many of the former residents of Abaco are gone to Nassau, to other islands or to the U.S. He's not sure that weeks from now he'll have enough work. MICHAEL JONES: There's not a lot of buildings left, so there's nothing to secure. The few cars that I make keys for will - you know, they'll run out eventually. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: He estimates he lost a quarter of a million dollars' worth of tools, stock and equipment that was not insured. Those monetary losses are only part of what he's grappling with as he weighs whether to stay on Abaco. His wife is in Nassau. One daughter has gone to Florida. MICHAEL JONES: And my oldest daughter's in Canada - so very fractured right now. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Friends have also left, so it's not just his business that's in limbo. It's his whole life. MICHAEL JONES: My life will not be the same as it was prior to the storm, so it might be better. You don't know. I'm still alive. A lot of people don't have that. But it's still 30 years of your life has just been erased, almost. And now you have to start over. And that's pretty hard for a lot of people. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: And he wonders, where does he go from here? - which is a question that a lot of people right now are still trying to figure out. JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: Jason Beaubien, NPR News, Marsh Harbour, the Bahamas.

When Hurricane Dorian hit the northern Bahamas a month ago, it shattered lives and ripped apart a delicate economy. Now, business owners are debating how to rebuild and whether it even makes sense.

Als Hurrikan Dorian vor einem Monat die nördlichen Bahamas traf, erschütterte er Leben und riss eine schwache Wirtschaft auseinander. Jetzt debattieren die Geschäftsinhaber darüber, wie der Wiederaufbau erfolgen soll und ob er überhaupt sinnvoll ist.

一个月前，多里安飓风袭击了巴哈马北部，摧毁了人们的生活，也摧毁了脆弱的经济。现在，业主们正在争论如何重建，以及重建是否还有意义。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Audie Cornish. We begin this hour in the classroom. In a moment, a new tax break in Alabama to help get kids out of failing schools and the parents who oppose it. But first, a word we haven't heard much of lately, sequestration. The federal government is reporting big cuts today for Head Start. The preschool program for low-income three and four-year-olds serves close to a million kids. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: But as NPR's Claudio Sanchez reports, this fall, many will be left out. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: Fifty-seven thousand two hundred and sixty-five, to be exact. That's how many children in some of the nation's poorest communities will have to go without medical and dental screenings, preschool and daycare. YVETTE SANCHEZ FUENTES: This is pretty bad. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: Yvette Sanchez Fuentes runs the Head Start program administered by HHS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. YVETTE SANCHEZ FUENTES: Programs also had to cut their programs by days, so they closed early or they're going to start late this new school year. And we know that at least 18,000 staff across the country were affected either through job losses or pay cuts. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: According to HHS, programs have shortened the school day by a total of 1.3 million days. Sanchez Fuentes says that's going to make it much, much harder for working parents to hang on to their jobs if they can't find a safe place to leave their children. The Obama administration actually warned that the problem was going be worse, predicting at one point that both the Head Start and Early Head Start programs would have to shed 70,000 children from their rolls. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: The fact that it's less, though, is no consolation, says Sally Aman, with the National Head Start Association. SALLY AMAN: For anyone to assume that nearly 60,000 kids being unable to attend Head Start is not a large number is just ridiculous. Sixty thousand is astronomical. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: Which is not to say that programs haven't tried to minimize the impact, says Aman. SALLY AMAN: Folks out in the states who are administering these programs - the teachers, the administrators, they have done everything possible to make cutting children from programs the last resort. So, what these programs have done is shorten school years, cut transportation services, which is devastating in and of itself, because that's the only means some of these kids have to even get to the program. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: Texas and California have been the hardest hit, cutting more than 10,000 kids from the program combined. Aman says Head Start's funding crisis could get actually worse unless Congress and the administration do something. SALLY AMAN: I am hopeful that while lawmakers are at home and hearing from the folks that they were elected to serve, that they would do everything in their power to find a financial solution to this travesty. CLAUDIO SANCHEZ, BYLINE: Because sequestration cuts are supposed to remain in effect until 2021, as currently required by the Budget Control Act, the impact could be really long term. Over 700 school boards, many of which manage Head Start programs, have adopted resolutions to amend the Budget Control Act and restore funding. Claudio Sanchez, NPR News.

New data from the federal government show that sequestration has eliminated more than 50,000 places for children in Head Start programs this fall. Some centers preserved slots for children by cutting back hours or shortening the school year and some states stepped in to fill the funding gap.

Neue Daten der Bundesregierung zeigen, dass in diesem Herbst mehr als 50.000 Plätze für Kinder in Head-Start-Programmen durch Sequestrierung weggefallen sind. Einige Zentren bewahrten die Plätze für Kinder, indem sie Stunden oder das Schuljahr verkürzten, und einige Bundesstaaten griffen ein, um die Finanzierungslücke zu schließen.

来自联邦政府的新数据显示，今年秋天，隔离措施已经取消了5万多个“先行先试”项目的儿童入学名额。一些机构通过减少课时或缩短学年来为儿童保留名额，一些州则采取措施填补资金缺口。

MICHELE NORRIS, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Michele Norris. MELISSA BLOCK, host: And I'm Melissa Block. There are growing reports of police abuse in Iraq. Sunni Arab politicians and religious leaders say death squads from Iraq's Shiite-led Interior Ministry are often behind the killings and kidnappings that make news almost every day. The U.S. has been focused on building the Iraqi army. Now it is shifting resources to deal with a police force that has spun out of control. NPR's Anne Garrels has the story from Baghdad. MELISSA BLOCK, host: ANNE GARRELS reporting: MELISSA BLOCK, host: Just getting into the Iraqi Interior Ministry indicates how dangerous this country is. Because of repeated bombings it took six checkpoints to reach a graduation ceremony at the Baghdad police academy. But Iraqi Brigadier General Ahmed says it's especially dangerous to be an honest policeman. He investigates crooked cops. At 38, he is young for the job, but he is aging fast. Since he took over command of the new Internal Affairs Division a few months ago, he's survived four assassination attempts. General AHMED (Internal Affairs, Iraqi Police): (Through translator) Two from outside, and two were by people within the Interior Ministry. GARRELS: As the latest crop of internal investigators collected their certificates, no one posed for the cameras. They don't want their identities known outside or inside the police force. According to 28-year-old Hamed (ph), they don't even trust each other. HAMED (Internal Affairs, Iraqi Police): (Through translator) It's a difficult question. Unfortunately, there's no trust between us. GARRELS: As General Ahmed congratulated the police investigators, he warned Iraq is at a crossroads. General AHMED (Internal Affairs, Iraqi Police): (Through translator) We must decide as a people whether to remain on a path of civil rights abuse, corruption and violence or to take the path of human dignity, justice and peace for every Iraqi. GARRELS: David Everett, a lawyer from New York who retired as a colonel from the Army Reserves, volunteered to help set up the Internal Affairs Division. Colonel DAVID EVERETT (Volunteer, Iraq): We're talking about kidnappings. We're talking about extortion. We're talking about shakedowns at checkpoints, all these things. It's not minor infractions that we're talking about here. GARRELS: He cites progress with the recent detention of a general suspected of torturing detainees and a police ring that sold passports on the black market. But Internal Affairs has also had to police its own department, closing down its branch in Basra because, as Everett put it, the guys there were the biggest gangsters in town. GARRELS: U.S. officials say problems with police stem from the lack of planning before the U.S. invasion three years ago. The new police force was thrown on the streets with little or no training and no vetting. In the process, some units became little more than militias. And the Ministry is now overseen at the highest levels by religious Shiite parties with ties to militias. Reports of uniformed death squads have risen sharply. Several of the new investigators said it would be difficult to deal with the militias because of political pressure. GARRELS: ROD (ph) (Internal Affairs, Iraqi Police): (Speaking foreign language) GARRELS: Rod, a 46-year-old investigator from Karbala, says he feels like his hands are tied for now. As one U.S. official put it, any Iraqi investigator who takes on the militias won't live long. So the Americans are taking the lead for now. It was Americans who raided a bunker last November where police were torturing Sunni detainees. And it was American troops who arrested a group of 22 Interior Ministry police commandos in January as they were about to execute a detained Sunni man. GARRELS: The government has repeatedly denied the existence of death squads. But when reports emerged yesterday that armed men in commando uniforms had raided a Baghdad security company in broad daylight and removed 50 employees, General Ahmed assumed it might just be renegade police. He's investigating. David Everett is proud of the help his American trainers have given Ahmed's division in the past six months. In addition to investigation techniques, the new Iraqi investigators receive human rights training. Everett has no illusions these lessons will stick overnight. Colonel DAVID EVERETT (Volunteer, Iraq): You've got to start someplace. And if we don't start someplace, then we can never have any chance of getting away from this cycle of abuse. GARRELS: Better training is key, but he says there must also be mentoring. Just as it once did with the Iraqi military, the U.S. is now putting American police with Iraqi units to improve oversight. But it's hard to find experienced trainers willing to spend long periods attached to police units. Everett will leave in April when his six-month tour is up, but he will leave plenty more to be done. Colonel DAVID EVERETT (Volunteer, Iraq): Anyone who thinks that this is going to happen overnight is going to find themselves sadly mistaken. GARRELS: He believes Americans must stay until the lessons turn into reality. GARRELS: Anne Garrels, NPR News, Baghdad.

Growing reports of police abuse prompt Iraq's Interior Ministry to set up a new unit to investigate charges of murder and other abuse by security forces. The United States is shifting resources to deal with the emerging internal crisis.

Zunehmende Berichte über Polizeimissbrauch veranlassen das irakische Innenministerium, eine neue Einheit einzurichten, um Anklagen wegen Mordes und anderer Misshandlungen durch Sicherheitskräfte zu untersuchen. Die Vereinigten Staaten verschieben Ressourcen, um die aufkommende interne Krise zu bewältigen.

越来越多的关于警察滥用权力的报道促使伊拉克内政部成立了一个新的部门来调查对安全部队谋杀和其他滥用权力行为的指控。美国正在转移资源，以应对正在出现的内部危机。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: On Wednesday, Mexico became the first country to ratify the USMCA, the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada. It's the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated during the Clinton administration. Now lawmakers in Canada and the U.S. have to do the same for the deal to move forward. But critics are pushing for changes, including labor leaders like Richard Trumka. He is the president of the AFL-CIO, and he's been traveling around the U.S. arguing that the agreement does not do enough to protect workers. And we called him to ask him to tell us more. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Mr. Trumka, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us. RICHARD TRUMKA: Well, Michel, it's great to be back on. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you were recently in Michigan speaking to autoworkers. The Detroit News quoted you as saying that the labor section in the agreement is actually better than NAFTA, but it still needs improvement. So can you just give me one or two ideas of what more needs to be done in your view? RICHARD TRUMKA: Well, as it currently stands, the agreement can't be enforced. And there are three levels that it must be enforced at. One, Mexico has to show us not only that it can pass laws but that it has the wherewithal, the infrastructure and the resources to be able to implement those laws and give workers a chance to better their wages and working conditions because if they don't do that, no matter what the agreement says, it's - it won't matter. It won't change workers' lives in this country. RICHARD TRUMKA: The second part is, the agreement's enforcement provisions need to be dramatically strengthened. The International Trade Commission's report recently confirmed what we already knew - that without a way to hold all three countries accessible, this deal isn't worth the paper it's written on. And under this agreement, any party can block a panel. A panel is the arbitrator that decides the dispute, the trade dispute. And if you can't ever get it decided by a third party, you can never actually implement it. RICHARD TRUMKA: And then the third level of enforcement is that workers need to be able to enforce this trade agreement to make it better so that it works for us so that if somebody violates the agreement in Mexico or Canada, we should be able to stop their products at the border. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I noted that the agreement was ratified by the Mexican Senate 114-4, and it received cross-party support. And I'm wondering - I mean, I'm thinking that might have been a tough vote for some of them, given particularly this administration's rhetoric around Mexico and immigration and so forth. But they did vote for it. I was wondering if you've heard from labor leaders in Mexico and what they're saying to you about it. RICHARD TRUMKA: The labor leaders in Mexico and Canada and the U.S. are all saying the same thing. The agreement is not ready for primetime. It needs to be changed for us to be able to support it. And they want to - they want that to happen. Look. The Mexican model was to keep wages artificially low so that they could suck jobs and investment out of the U.S. And the Mexican workers suffered from all of that. They want not just labor laws passed, but they want to make sure that the labor laws are enforced so that they can actually negotiate. And Canada's saying the same thing. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But it's my understanding that one of the provisions of the new agreement is that 40% to 45%, say, of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Is that one of the provisions that at least makes it better than the previous? RICHARD TRUMKA: Well, that provision is more illusory. On the $16 wages, the part that you left out is that the $16 is an average wage so that if, in fact, you have a Detroit auto worker making $30, and you have a Mexican worker making $3, it still meets the $16 average. So it does very little to help. It's more illusory than it is anything else. In addition to that, it is not pegged to inflation, so that $16 will stay in place forever and become less and less meaningful with each year. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: What in this agreement makes it better in your perspective? Because you did say that there was something in it that was, so tell me one thing. RICHARD TRUMKA: There are. The labor chapter itself is better. However, if you can't enforce the labor chapter, it is meaningless. And so we're trying to get the enforcement on three different levels that I outlined earlier. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what's your message to Democrats here? I mean, the issue is, so far, the administration has been trying to work with the Democrats. I mean, the trade chief, for example, the U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, has been working with Democrats to hear their concerns about it. I mean, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appointed nine House Democrats to committees to negotiate these sort of - these changes. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: But there is this some sense that, you know, the administration - others in the administration would like to fast-track it. There is a mechanism for doing that. I mean, do you have a specific message to Democrats? Because, as you know, with such a large - particularly with such a large presidential field, you've got all kinds of different opinions about international trade in that group. Do you know what I mean? So do you have a specific message to them about how to - you would like to see them proceed? RICHARD TRUMKA: Yeah, we do. Look. NAFTA isn't broken. It's done exactly what it was meant to. It exploited workers in Mexico. It disrupted lives here. It's taken money out of our pockets, and it's put it in the hands of a few billionaires. So the solution just isn't a new NAFTA. It can't be rebranded or a sliver of change. The only answer is a strong enforceable mechanism for raising wages and protecting the rights of working people. This agreement is not yet there. It's no. And if they insist on trying to jam through this inferior, ineffective trade agreement that is nothing more right now than a-little-bit-better-NAFTA, then we would have to oppose it. And I think that we would have enough votes on both sides of the aisle to prevent it from becoming the law of the land. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. Mr. Trumka, thanks so much for talking to us once again. RICHARD TRUMKA: Thanks for having me on, I really appreciate it.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Richard Trumka about the union's opposition to the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit Richard Trumka über den Widerstand der Gewerkschaft gegen das vorgeschlagene Abkommen zwischen den USA, Mexiko und Kanada.

美国全国公共广播电台新闻的米歇尔·马丁与理查德·特拉姆卡就联盟反对美墨加协议的提议进行了交谈。

LUKE BURBANK, host: The president's new plan for Iraq puts a lot of responsibility on the Iraqi government. And that's been greeted with skepticism by many on Capitol Hill. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to explain how it would work at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier today. Ms. CONDOLEEZZA RICE (U.S. Secretary of State): We will have an opportunity, as this policy unfolds, to see whether or not in fact the Iraqis are living up to the assurances that they gave us. Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts): And what if they don't? Ms. CONDOLEEZZA RICE (U.S. Secretary of State): Senator, I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with plan A. Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts): That's not a Plan B. That's a very critical issue here. LUKE BURBANK, host: That was Massachusetts Senator John Kerry confronting Rice. ALEX CHADWICK, host: And Luke, joining me here in our Washington studio, John Dickerson. He's chief political correspondent for the online magazine Slate. John, a very active day in politics in the last 24 hours. JOHN DICKERSON: Oh my God, it's extraordinary. It's moving under our feet. We have not only testimony from the administration. We also have to see, we're looking at this debate within the Democratic Party. And then the key - another key thing to watch is these Republicans. You've got several who've already come out against the surge, and that number is growing. ALEX CHADWICK, host: You know, I just - we're going to go to the Republicans in a moment. But I just want to note that Slate online, Slate.com, has excellent coverage of this today. Several articles. In one of them, your editor, Jacob Weisberg, calls the Democrats political cowards. It sounds as though maybe they're developing a little backbone over in that caucus. JOHN DICKERSON: Well, it depends. There's a debate in the House. This is a rough breakup of the debate. But in the House, they want to cut funding. And that's a little bit more robust. In the Senate they have a slower approach, which is to do this non-binding resolution. That's what Jacob argues is cowardice, because it really doesn't do anything to stop the president. And those who support this non-binding resolution would argue, no, what it does is it potentially creates a situation in which you get agreement between these Republicans who don't like the surge and Democrats and you create a public moment, a political moment where the president has to back down. So you do something that's bipartisan and weak that might be, in the end, more powerful than a cutting off of funding, which would be a more partisan move. LUKE BURBANK, host: John, you've got Luke here in L.A. What about those Republicans? Generally speaking, what's their reaction been? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, there have been several who've come out strongly against it. You've got Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Brownback, Senator Snowe and Collins of Maine. And this number appears to be growing. And this is a problem for the White House, of course, because now they've (unintelligible) they can't say, well, this is just on the Democrats. You've got a growing number of Republicans now in the Senate who are coming out against. ALEX CHADWICK, host: So we're going to be watching that. You're going to see more of this discussion between the White House and their own Republicans. I mean Sam Brownback is - that's someone they would count on. JOHN DICKERSON: Well, that's right. And one of the political things to keep in mind here, of course, is you got 21 Republicans up in 2008 in the Senate. And those Republicans have to think very carefully. Norm Coleman is up for reelection. He's come out against this. John Sununu is up for a reelection. He's playing it very carefully. This is a political question for them, and they worry that a president who doesn't have any more political future, is kind of going off, and they have to keep their own interests in mind with respect to this. ALEX CHADWICK, host: They have a very slim majority for the Democrats in the Senate. But the Republicans, in order to stop the Senate from getting anything done, they need 41 votes. They might not have 41 votes on this. JOHN DICKERSON: Well, that's the big worry. They can try and filibuster, but if they lose enough Republicans it won't work. ALEX CHADWICK, host: We'll be back with more of John Dickerson in a moment on DAY TO DAY. LUKE BURBANK, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Luke Burbank. ALEX CHADWICK, host: And I'm Alex Chadwick in Washington. Again, with John Dickerson, chief political correspondent at the online magazine Slate. Surely, John, you watched the president's speech last night. What did you think about the content of the speech? We haven't really asked you that. And the kind of the tenor of it? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, let's start with the superficial, the tenor. It was contrite. He admitted mistakes. He was also more candid about what's coming. The architects of this plan, this surge plan, have been quite candid. Very bloody, going to get worse before it gets better. It's going to be long. The president wasn't that candid. But he got - he sort of got there. And this a president who's not been very candid in his Iraq speeches. JOHN DICKERSON: What was extraordinary, though, was the amount of - the amount that he's putting on the shoulders of the Iraqi government. And there there were no caveats, there were no warnings. Suddenly he talked about the Iraqi government and what it could achieve as if the past had not happened. And this was extraordinary. This strategy relies on competence from the Iraqi government we have not seen. And it also relies on - he said at one point - that Prime Minister Maliki would not tolerate sectarian violence. JOHN DICKERSON: Well, this is extraordinary. As if Maliki could do such a thing. And that is the big question in this speech. And then, of course, then the follow-up question is, well, what if he doesn't? And that wasn't in the speech either. In briefings, senior administration officials have said, well, Maliki's feeling some internal pressure within his democracy. Well, in Iraq they have - when they feel unhappiness with their leaders, they sometimes take it out in the streets rather than waiting peacefully for an election. JOHN DICKERSON: So they're not very clear, in public, anyway, about what the pressure is on the Maliki government. In private, senators, Republicans I talked to that the president briefed, said that he has - the president has, in no uncertain terms, told Maliki this is the last chance. But does that really mean troops are on the way out? This is the big open question in this. You heard in the clip earlier, Secretary of State Rice is not anxious to talk about what kind of pressure they're putting on Maliki. JOHN DICKERSON: You can understand this from a diplomatic standpoint because she doesn't want to make him look like a puppet. On the other hand, it's a tough thing to sell a program of this magnitude that's not very popular without answering the question, what's going to make the Iraqis step up? LUKE BURBANK, host: John, Alex mentioned during the last segment about Sam Brownback in Iraq and this general Republican opposition at least from some quarters to the White House. You're talking about this being a tough sales job. How big of an impediment is that going to be? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, for Brownback it's interesting, of course, because he's a declared presidential candidate, or he is thinking about running for president. And he is the first of that group of Republicans who want to come after Bush, who has said no to the surge. McCain and Giuliani, and former Governor Romney in Massachusetts are all supporting the surge. McCain said he would have preferred more troops, but when he heard the final number, he called up General Petraeus, who will be in charge of running the show in Iraq, and Petraeus said he felt this was a number that he could live with, and that the president had assured him if he needed more troops, that he would get them right away, which is interesting. JOHN DICKERSON: On the Democratic side, we have an interesting split here. We have all of them against the notion of the surge, but the new fault line is which of them will press for this cutting off of funding. Senators Kerry and former Senator Edwards are pushing to stop the funding, which is the stronger position. JOHN DICKERSON: Barack Obama, this morning in remarks, seemed to duck that question. He's against the surge but won't come down on this position. Activists, liberal activists within the Democratic Party are pushing for a reduction in funding or a limitation of funding. And the positioning has to happen now. Senator Clinton, the one everybody watches, has said she's against the surge, but it's not clear where she is on the funding. ALEX CHADWICK, host: John Dickerson, chief political correspondent for the online magazine Slate here with us in Washington. John, thank you again. JOHN DICKERSON: Thank you.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are on Capitol Hill Thursday, seeking support for the president's Iraq plan. John Dickerson, chief political correspondent for the online magazine Slate, talks with Alex Chadwick and Luke Burbank.

Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice und Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates sind am Donnerstag auf dem Capitol Hill, um Unterstützung für den Irak-Plan des Präsidenten zu gewinnen. John Dickerson, politischer Chefkorrespondent des Online-Magazins Slate, spricht mit Alex Chadwick und Luke Burbank.

国务卿康多莉扎·赖斯和国防部长罗伯特·盖茨星期四在国会山为总统的伊拉克计划寻求支持。在线杂志《Slate》的首席政治记者约翰·迪克森与亚历克斯·查德威克和卢克·伯班克交谈。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The attacks overnight in Paris represent a shift in the way counterterrorism officials see ISIS. There have been a handful of attacks around the world that have been attributed to the group - shootings at a museum in Belgium, stabbings of police and military. This is different. NPR's counterterrorism correspondent Dina Temple-Raston joins us in our studios. Dina, thanks so much for being with us. DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: You're welcome. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Story's still unfolding, we understand. What are you hearing? DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Well, the evidence is that the Islamic State is behind this. In addition to French President Francois Hollande saying that the attacks were the work of ISIS, the group itself claimed responsibility in an online statement a short time ago. And they say the attacks were a response to French airstrikes in Syria and that France would remain, in their words, a top target as long as it continued its current policies. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: This has been independently confirmed by intelligence officials you've been able to talk to. DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Well, my understanding is that officials first started to suspect ISIS was behind this late last night. There were some cellphone conversations or texts that the gunmen were exchanging while the attacks were going on. And they mentioned ISIS. And here's why that's important. You remember the Mumbai attacks in 2008 that were - those were attacks on hotels and Jewish centers and a railway station. Well, one of the ways that they traced it back to the perpetrators was by picking up phone conversations between the gunmen and their handlers in Pakistan. The information is still coming in, but it appears that something similar happened here. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Dina, if this is ISIS, which it seems to be, this seems a real departure for a group - a large-scale terrorist attack against an international target. They've never done that before. DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Right, I mean, when ISIS first began to rise, one of the things that counterterrorism officials were really worried about was that ISIS and al-Qaida would begin to compete for the world's attention and they would do that with spectacular attacks against the West. For months, U.S. counterterrorism officials have said that al-Qaida was the biggest threat against the United States. I think that changed last night. Everyone I was talking to was convinced that the sophistication of the attacks that Eleanor was talking about - suicide belts, explosions, simultaneous targets - and the similarity to Mumbai clearly pointed to an al-Qaida-linked group. They didn't think ISIS had the organizational ability to pull off something like this. And now it seems they clearly do. And President Obama said yesterday that the ISIS threat was contained. This makes it seem that perhaps it isn't. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And I guess we should remind ourselves, just a few days ago ISIS was also linked to the downing of a Russian airliner near Sharm el-Sheikh. DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Exactly. I mean, officials said they're 99.9 percent sure that ISIS managed to put a bomb on that plane. U.S. officials haven't been allowed to analyze the forensic evidence on the ground there. But they did have a satellite image of the plane that suggested, from the photograph of the image, a military-grade explosive brought it down. So again, that suggests things have really changed here. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Do you know where the investigation goes from here? DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Well, the French have the best intelligence and penetration of their communities in Europe. So there's going to be, as Eleanor said, a search for accomplices. The eight gunmen were killed. Seven of them blew themselves up with suicide belts, and one was shot. And Hollande restricted border access right away last night 'cause there's this concern that suspects or accomplices could escape. So this is actually exactly what happened during the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this year. You'll recall there was a gunman who took hostages in a kosher market. And police were searching for a woman that was with him. It turns out to be his wife. And as they were searching for her, she suddenly surfaced in Syria with ISIS. So they've put all these travel restrictions in place in hopes of avoiding a repeat of that. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Dina, France bristles with visible security. This is the second major attack in a year. What makes France this target? DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: Well, there's sort of a perfect storm going on in France. It's the third highest - it has the third highest number of foreign fighters who've gone to Syria from Europe. About 200 of those people have returned to France. And that's just too many people to keep an eye on. I mean, in fact, during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they said one of the reasons why they stopped watching the Charlie Hebdo attackers was because they thought they had more severe threats that they needed to keep an eye on. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: NPR's Dina Temple-Raston, thanks so much. DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: You're welcome.

French President Francois Hollande is blaming the Islamic State for the attacks overnight in Paris, and the group has claimed responsibility. The large-scale terrorist attack against an international target would mark a departure for the militant group.

Der französische Präsident François Hollande macht den Islamischen Staat für die Anschläge in der Nacht in Paris verantwortlich, und die Gruppe hat die Verantwortung dafür übernommen. Der groß angelegte Terroranschlag auf ein internationales Ziel würde einen Neuanfang für die militante Gruppe bedeuten.

法国总统弗朗索瓦·奥朗德把巴黎的突发袭击归咎于伊斯兰国，而该组织也已声称对此负责。针对国际目标进行大规模恐怖袭击，标志着该激进组织与一贯风格的背离。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been in Asia for the last few days. He's spent several hours in Pyongyang with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un. They talked about denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and scheduling a second meeting with President Trump. Pompeo called it a good trip. Then he was in Beijing today, and that visit was notably not as good. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had some sharp words for Pompeo about the state of U.S.-China relations. NPR's Anthony Kuhn is in Beijing, and he joins us now. Hey, Anthony. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Hey there, Ailsa. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So what exactly was said in front of reporters? What were these remarks that were so critical of the U.S. from China? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, Wang Yi really started out on a pretty harsh note, saying that the U.S. had constantly escalated trade tensions with China. It had harmed China's interests in regards to Taiwan, and it had made a lot of baseless accusations against China's foreign and domestic policies. Wang Yi noted that Pompeo had come to brief them about his trip to North Korea and to seek China's cooperation. And he said, this is exactly why we should be cooperating and not confronting each other. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Did Pompeo respond to any of these criticisms in front of reporters? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, he said the U.S. and China were in fundamental disagreement on Wang's points. And I think what came out through this was that China feels that the U.S. is just launching an all-out sort of cold war on every front. And I think this has something to do with the speech that Vice President Mike Pence gave last week... AILSA CHANG, HOST: Where he accused China of malign efforts to undermine President Trump in the upcoming elections. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Yeah, that was just one of the things. I mean, really it was just across the board, from stealing American intellectual property to human rights, the treatment of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. It was really confrontational and very little talk of cooperation. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Why would Chinese officials take such offense at Mike Pence's speech if the vast majority of what he was saying substantively is stuff the U.S. has long been saying about China? Was it the particular tone Pence took? Or is it the timing - that right now, you know, Pompeo's trying to keep good relations still with China when it comes to North Korea, and this was just an inconvenient speech to be giving while Pompeo was making this trip? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: You know, this has been building up. Earlier this year, we had a national security strategy, an official document which basically name China as one of the main threats facing the U.S. So that's part of the attitude. You know, I think it's really just China feels that this marks a shift away from cooperation and towards confrontation, this depiction of China as really a rogue regime and one of the top threats to U.S. security that has to be dealt with harshly. I really think that's the tone that China is reacting to. And I think it will be reacting to it. I think that's going to be sinking in for quite a while. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Now, under previous administrations, officials have been reluctant to push Beijing too hard on trade or other issues the U.S. has been critical of when it comes to China because of this idea that it needs China's help when it comes to North Korea. So could President Trump's tough stance with China hurt the U.S.'s ability to reach a deal with North Korea? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, certainly that's the implication of what happened today. Of course, we're seeing a confluence of factors. It's not just the North Korea issue that the U.S. needs China's help on. It's so many issues of global importance. But the U.S. seems to want to put competition with China in front of cooperation on these global issues. AILSA CHANG, HOST: All right, that's NPR's Anthony Kuhn. Thank you very much, Anthony. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: You're welcome, Ailsa.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has spent the past few days traveling in East Asia. He left Beijing on Monday after visiting Japan, North and South Korea, and China.

Außenminister Mike Pompeo war in den letzten Tagen auf Reisen in Ostasien. Er verließ Beijing am Montag, nachdem er Japan, Nord- und Südkorea sowie China besucht hatte.

美国国务卿迈克·庞培过去几天一直在东亚进行访问。在访问了日本、朝鲜、韩国和中国后，他于周一离开了北京。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., is one of the oldest black congregations in the South. Four years ago today, people gathered there for Bible study, and they welcomed a stranger who was a white supremacist. He opened fire during the closing prayer, killing nine people. A new documentary titled "Emanuel" tells the stories of those who were killed, including 59-year-old Myra Thompson, who was training to become a minister. Her husband, Reverend Anthony Thompson, spoke with Rachel Martin. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: How did you and Myra first meet? ANTHONY THOMPSON: Well, she was on her way to Charleston, S.C., one morning. However, she missed her bus. And I was coming through the campus. And I said, well, I'm on my way to Charleston. And make a long story short, I offered her a ride home. After that, I just couldn't leave her alone. ANTHONY THOMPSON: She just told me what she expected out of life, and everything was no-nonsense. I never heard that from a woman before. I mean, I was like - she put the fear of God in me. ANTHONY THOMPSON: Yes, it did. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: Can you take me back to that day, the last day? When did you first hear that a shooting had happened at the church? ANTHONY THOMPSON: Well, my phone rang. It was a member of Emanuel AME Church. She said, Reverend Thompson, you need to go to the church because there's shooting going on. I was, like, oh, my God. I dropped my phone; I ran out the house, got in my car. And in five minutes, I was downtown because we lived downtown. Police officer had the streets blocked off. And he told me - said, well, everybody had been taken out of the church, and they're over at the hotel, which is adjacent to the church on Calhoun Street. ANTHONY THOMPSON: So I drove down. I walk in the door. And I saw Felicia Sanders and her granddaughter, two survivors - they were hugging each other, crying. They didn't see me. Then when I turned around to go back out of the door, Felicia Sanders looked at me. And she said, Reverend Thompson, Myra's gone. And I said, oh, well, she'll be back. I'll just wait here until she comes back. She said, no, she's gone. ANTHONY THOMPSON: I mean, I just couldn't believe it. I was, like, no, she got to be kidding. And finally, it kicked in. And I just lost it. I fell down on the pavement on Calhoun Street. I mean, oh, Jesus. And I just cried. I mean, I cried like a baby. First time in my life that I ever lost control. I didn't know what to do. I kept saying, I don't know what to do. ANTHONY THOMPSON: You know, for me, all purpose in life was gone - just gone. And after a while, I heard a voice say, get up. And then I looked around. Nobody was really looking at me. And I heard a voice again - get up. And I'm, like, you've got to be kidding. This is God. Like, why are you talking to me like that? You know, it wasn't, like - be of good cheer. Fear not. This is the Lord. He was, like, get up. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: (Laughter). ANTHONY THOMPSON: And I'm, like, OK. This, I don't need. And he just kept at it. Like, all I could hear was, OK, well, this is what I want you to preach on Sunday. And he gave me a scripture, St. Luke 17 - so watch yourself but forgive. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: In the documentary, there is this overwhelming moment where the judge has invited the families of the victims to come and address the shooter at this bond hearing. And instead of anger - instead of even sadness, the overwhelming message is of forgiveness. ANTHONY THOMPSON: You know, I forgive you. My family forgives you. But we would like you to take this opportunity to repent - repent, confess, give your life to the one that is the most - Christ. ANTHONY THOMPSON: As soon as I got through saying that, I was free. I mean, I was light as a feather. I mean, I felt a peace. I mean, everything had gone. And I realized that he freed me. He freed me from the pain that I was feeling, from the anger I felt. He freed me from the sadness I had in my heart. I mean, he just took everything away. I mean, it just brought me to tears. I just - I don't know. He just came and took over. Oh, my God. And I feel that same peace right now today. It's not - it hasn't gone. It's still with me. And it enabled me to move forward in my life. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: I want to ask you about that because it was such a statement, such an illustration of grace when you when the other family members stood up there and forgave the person who took the lives of your loved ones. But there were people in Charleston who - they saw that and felt that by forgiving this shooter, you had freed him from accountability in some way - that you had given the broader country an easy way to say, these things happen - the only way to deal with it isn't to change gun laws or take on racism at the root cause. It's just to forgive and move on. What do you say to that? ANTHONY THOMPSON: I've told people that the forgiveness is not for the perpetrator or the offender. Forgiveness is for the victim. I didn't let Dylann off the hook. Dylann is in prison, but I'm free. And it changed Charleston. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: How so? ANTHONY THOMPSON: You know, where there was this undertone of racism that people - we just didn't talk about. But we came together, you know, as one people. The Confederate flag came down when nobody was talking about the flag. It's just - forgiveness just opened everybody's minds up and started to heal our city. There's a lot going on since that day. You know, God took this tragedy and brought the good. And it all came from acts of forgiveness. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: Reverend Anthony Thompson, thank you so much for talking with us. ANTHONY THOMPSON: You're welcome. And thank you for having me.

On June 17, 2015, a white supremacist walked into a bible study and murdered nine African Americans. The film Emanuel is the story of the victims and survivors of that night.

Am 17. Juni 2015 betrat ein weißer Rassist eine Bibelstunde und ermordete neun Afroamerikaner. Der Film Emanuel erzählt die Geschichte der Opfer und Überlebenden dieser Nacht.

2015年6月17日，一名白人至上主义者走进一个圣经学习班，杀害了9名非裔美国人。电影《伊曼纽尔》讲述了那一晚受害者和幸存者的故事。

TONY COX, host: And now it's letter time. Our editor Sasa Woodruff is here with me. Hey, Sasa. SASA WOODRUFF: Hey, Tony how's it going? TONY COX, host: It's going well, thank you. So, the story that got the most attraction from listener response was an interview we did with finance and economic professor Sherry Jarrell, who was quite critical of the latest stimulus package. SASA WOODRUFF: That's right. Here are a couple of responses from our website. First off, Larry Parker agreed with our guest and wrote us this. (Reading) It is absolutely a bad thing to do. It is not thought out and targeted to capital projects. Just another chance for politicians to buy votes, and they love to spend our money. It is the plan of the socialist that is now running the country. TONY COX, host: Then, Francisco Lopez fired back with this. (Reading) Socialist, how interesting that we would call policies to get us out of the economic hole that when the political thought of the last 30 years has simply been welfare for the rich. SASA WOODRUFF: Then Qwende Madu(ph) chimed in with this. (Reading) Pure Republican haberdash. The government didn't require banks to make bad loans. They did so of their own accord. Furthermore, the stimulus package is not meant to replace private investment but is the last resort meant to show entrepreneurs that the economy is still viable. TONY COX, host: And Walter Groppe(ph) has cheered our guest with this remarks. (Reading) Government got us into this mess. That means, Democrats and Republicans should they be trying to get us out of it? No, the government needs to sit down, shut up and learn. SASA WOODRUFF: Now, moving on to another story. Ann Powers(ph) in St. Louise, Missouri wrote us after she heard us replay a Roundtable with African-American mystery authors. TONY COX, host: She wrote, I heard the original but did not write down their names since I was driving at that time. I did remember Paula Wood's name and purchase one of her books and thoroughly enjoyed it. I now will look for books by the other two. I never thought about whether or not an author was any particular race when buying mysteries in the past. Thank you again for the repeat. SASA WOODRUFF: And as we head into our last week, we continue to get farewell notes from our fans. We'll close today with one from Jamie Scott in New York City. (Reading) Tony Cox and all the great staff of News and Notes, as the sad day draws closer where I won't be able to listen to you on my way to bed on WNYC, I just wanted to say thank you for keeping me in touch with the African-American experience and for all your good work. I will miss the show so much. What a huge loss, what a huge shame. SASA WOODRUFF: And that's it for letters. Thank you for writing. Please keep you thoughts coming for another week. TONY COX, host: To write us just log on npr.org and click on Contact Us. When you get there, you'll see a lot of shows to choose from. Make sure you pick News & Notes when you write to us. SASA WOODRUFF: And be sure to tell us where you're writing from and how to pronounce your name. TONY COX, host: Thanks, Sasa. SASA WOODRUFF: No problem. TONY COX, host: That's our show for today. Glad you could join us. To listen to the show or subscribe to the podcast, visit our Web site, nprnewsandnotes.org. To join the conversation or sign-up for the newsletter, visit our blog at nprnewsandviews.org. News & Notes was created by NPR News and the African-American Public Radio consortium. Tomorrow, disgrace financier Bernie Madoff goes to jail after pleading guilty to running a vast Ponzi scheme. A look at the week's top headlines on our reporters' Roundtable. TONY COX, host: I'm Tony Cox. This is News & Notes.

NPR's Tony Cox and News & Notes editor Sasa Woodruff read and respond to listeners' e-mails about the end of the program. Tomorrow marks the broadcast's final day on the air.

Tony Cox von NPR und die Redakteurin von News & Notes, Sasa Woodruff, lesen und beantworten die E-Mails der Hörer zum Ende der Sendung. Morgen ist der letzte Tag, an dem die Sendung ausgestrahlt wird.

国家公共广播电台的托尼·考克斯和《新闻与笔记》的编辑萨萨·伍德拉夫一起阅读并回复听众关于节目停播这件事的电子邮件。明天是该广播节目播出的最后一天。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: The back and forth over the congresswomen's visit, now non-visit, to Israel is where we begin our weekly politics chat. Today I am joined by Politico's Eliana Johnson. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Welcome back. ELIANA JOHNSON: Thank you. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And Matthew Yglesias, editor and columnist for the news website Vox, welcome back to you. MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Good to be here. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So let's talk norms, and I want to hear from both of you on this. Matthew, I'll throw this to you first. It is, of course, not unusual for a U.S. president to insert himself in Mideast politics, even in Israeli domestic politics. How unusual is it for a U.S. president to enlist a foreign ally, in this case Netanyahu, in taking on his - Trump's - domestic political opponents? MATTHEW YGLESIAS: I mean, it's strange. And it's very strange to see an American president not standing up for the right of American citizens to go visit countries but to actually be doing... MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: American elected members of Congress. MATTHEW YGLESIAS: Yeah, the opposite - and it shows, you know, the extent to which Trump has really tripled down on partisanship domestically, that he sees his adversaries as adversaries not as people who he, as president, needs to be, sort of, representing the interests of everybody. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Eliana. ELIANA JOHNSON: I think presidents have typically adhered to a norm that politics end at the water's edge and have tried to respect that. And President Trump - clearly not sticking to that here. Well, American presidents have tended to insert themselves into Mideast politics, as you suggested, and into Israeli domestic politics. ELIANA JOHNSON: When American presidents push Israeli leaders and Palestinian leaders to do things, that sort of advice is typically conveyed behind closed doors, particularly when Americans are pushing the Israeli government to do something because Israelis really bristle at the notion that they are a tool of the United States. They're often mocked as being a lapdog of the U.S. ELIANA JOHNSON: And so I think Trump really put Netanyahu in a bad position. Netanyahu may have wanted to do this for his own political purposes. As you mentioned, he's got an election coming up. So I think Trump, by doing this, kind of - he put him in a tough spot by putting this out on Twitter, as opposed to, perhaps, conveying his wishes privately. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Political consequences for the president - what do you think, Matthew? MATTHEW YGLESIAS: You know, I don't know how much this matters to the average American. But I do think that the sort of underlying question here is worth paying some attention to because a lot of American politicians visit Israel. A lot of American political journals visit Israel. There are a lot of programs to bring us over there, but people tend not to go to the West Bank. They tend not to see the villages that Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar were going to go to. MATTHEW YGLESIAS: And, you know, the press - had this trip happened and had press followed them and seen life under occupation, what it's like to struggle when your water is being diverted to settlements that need swimming pools, when you're cut off from your land by walls - things like that - it's eye-opening. And it's important. And I think, you know, there's a reason why the Israeli government is restrictive in general about who's allowed to visit and who's allowed to see these things. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Eliana. ELIANA JOHNSON: Well, the Israeli government adopted a law two years ago that gives them the right to prohibit supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that seeks to isolate Israel economically from... MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And these two particular members of Congress... ELIANA JOHNSON: Exactly. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Are two of the few who have supported that. ELIANA JOHNSON: That's right. So - from entering the country, and they haven't enforced it against every person who supports it who seeks to enter Israel, but they have sometimes enforced it. And lawmakers of other countries have been banned on these grounds. And so I think it's a little bit less an issue of, are Americans and others seeing the West Bank? - and a bit more of an issue of, what's America's position on this law? You know, I think Israel is fully within its rights to have this law, but where does the U.S. stand when it comes to this law? MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: One thing before we move on from this subject - this caught my eye - which was among the many groups and individuals that came out and criticized the decision to bar the congresswomen was AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is not known for opposing Benjamin Netanyahu. But they did exactly that. They came out against this decision. Did that strike either of you? MATTHEW YGLESIAS: You know, it's important to AIPAC to try to have their position in Israel be bipartisan. And I think Donald Trump's domestic politics - he wants to elevate a relatively rare stance inside the Democratic caucus. And that's what's going on here, and that's not in the interests of AIPAC and, I think, not really in the long-term interests of Israel. And their stance on this reflects that. They would like to bring the temperature down. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: All right, let me turn you both to a story that already seems to be receding from the front pages - mass shootings and what to do about them. Right after Dayton and El Paso, the president came out and said he supported meaningful background checks. And then last night at a rally in New Hampshire, the president said this. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: People have to remember, however, that there is a mental illness problem that has to be dealt with. It's not the gun that pulls the trigger. It's the person holding the gun. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Eliana Johnson, what's going on here? ELIANA JOHNSON: So President Trump is certainly the X factor when it comes to whether something's going to happen in the wake of these two mass shootings that we've seen. The House Judiciary Committee is coming back early from recess to consider several gun measures, including whether to ban high-capacity magazines and to establish a process to prevent people who are deemed a risk to themselves and others and ban them from possessing firearms. ELIANA JOHNSON: Trump, behind the scenes, despite the soundbite that you played, has signaled a lot of openness to taking some sort of action. I think the question is, is it going to be the sort of action that Democrats unite behind? They've called for universal background checks - many Democrats. I don't think the president is likely to get behind that, so I think the open question when Trump returns from his vacation, when Congress gets back from recess, is, can they reach a compromise? MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Matthew, can they reach a compromise if the president doesn't get in there and back it? MATTHEW YGLESIAS: No. I mean, the only way to move forward on this would be for President Trump to engage in a really serious way. I do think the mental health question is interesting. I mean, President Trump has signed on to a lawsuit that, if it prevails, 20 million people are going to lose their health insurance coverage. He has changed regulations at HHS to allow the sale of health insurance plans that don't cover mental health treatments. So it would be interesting for me to see a real effort on mental health, if that's what he thinks the issue is, or on guns, if that's what he thinks the issue is. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: I have a very quick lightning round for both of you before I let you go. Greenland - President Trump, it's been reported, would like to buy it. Good idea? Crazy idea? Discuss. Quick take, Matt. MATTHEW YGLESIAS: America has tried to buy Greenland twice before, so, you know, why not give it a third whirl? MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Eliana. ELIANA JOHNSON: As a White House reporter, to me, this would really be President Trump, the real estate magnate, leaving his stamp on the presidency if it goes through. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Plus maybe a good trip to Greenland in the... ELIANA JOHNSON: Exactly, exactly. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: ...Future for the White House press corps. ELIANA JOHNSON: I'm all for it. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: OK, that's Politico's Eliana Johnson and Matthew Iglesias, editor and columnist for the website Vox. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Thanks to you both. Happy Friday.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Matthew Yglesias of Vox, and Eliana Johnson of Politico, about Rep. Rashida Tlaib's cancelled trip to Israel and bipartisan efforts on gun policy.

Mary Louise Kelly von NPR spricht mit Matthew Yglesias von Vox und Eliana Johnson von Politico über die abgesagte Reise der Abgeordneten Rashida Tlaib nach Israel und die parteiübergreifenden Bemühungen in der Waffenpolitik.

NPR新闻的玛丽·路易斯·凯利，Vox新闻的马修·伊格莱西亚斯和Politico新闻的埃利安娜·约翰逊就拉希达·特拉伊布被取消的以色列之行，以及两党在枪支政策上的努力进行了交流。

STEVE INSKEEP, Host: NPR's business news starts with a legal challenge to Apple. STEVE INSKEEP, Host: Yesterday, Nokia filed a complaint against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission, and this is part of a larger legal battle. Nokia has already sued Apple for patent infringement and Apple has denied the charges and countersued.

Nokia is broadening its legal battle against Apple Inc. On the heels of a dispute with Apple over the iPhone, it now says almost all of the company's other products also violate the Finnish phone maker's patents. Nokia has filed a complaint against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission. Earlier this year Nokia sued Apple for patent infringement. Apple denied the charged and countersued.

Nokia weitet seinen Rechtsstreit gegen Apple Inc. aus. Nach einem Streit mit Apple über das iPhone behauptet das Unternehmen nun, dass fast alle anderen Produkte des Unternehmens ebenfalls die Patente des finnischen Telefonherstellers verletzen. Nokia hat eine Beschwerde gegen Apple bei der Internationale Handelskommission der USA eingereicht. Zu Beginn dieses Jahres hatte Nokia Apple wegen Patentverletzung verklagt. Apple wies die Vorwürfe zurück und reichte Gegenklage ein.

诺基亚正在扩大与苹果公司的法律战。继与苹果公司就iPhone发生纠纷之后，该公司现在表示，该公司几乎所有其他产品都侵犯了这家芬兰手机制造商的专利。诺基亚已经向美国国际贸易委员会提交了针对苹果的申诉。今年早些时候，诺基亚起诉苹果侵犯专利。苹果否认了这一指控，并提出反诉。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So that was the U.N. Security Council in New York. While the U.N. Security Council was debating the Venezuela political crisis in Venezuela's capital, Caracas, this was going on. UNIDENTIFIED SINGERS: (Singing in Spanish). MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Philip Reeves is in Caracas, and he's with us now. Phil, what are we listening to there? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, that's a rally that took place in the middle of Caracas. The crowd's singing the Venezuelan national anthem while on the stage is Juan Guiado, the man who's very much in the center of this confrontation that's happening here, this political drama. This is Guiado's second street rallies since declaring himself interim president in front of a huge crowd in this city on Wednesday and taking the oath and then immediately being recognized by the U.S., Canada, many Latin American nations and others. So he's taking his challenge to Maduro to the streets. And he says, despite the risk of arrest, he's going to carry on doing that until Maduro leaves. There's going to be a week of mass protests next week, he says. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So that sounded like a much smaller crowd than the ones you had described earlier. What do you make of that? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Oh, yes, it was far smaller. I mean, the one on Wednesday was absolutely massive. This was a couple of thousand people. I think one reason is that Guiado announced this meeting late last night. Transport is pretty hard in Caracas, and people are worried about violence of course. But this is also actually a cabildo, and now that's a kind of open-air town hall meeting. The opposition, led by Guiado, have held a lot of these in recent days around the country. It's a new way of pressuring Maduro. They use these to explain to people their view that Maduro's presidency's illegitimate because he won his second term, which has just begun, on the basis of a rigged election. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: And today, at this cabildo, this meeting, Guiado went over some of his main themes. He talked about the victims of Maduro's government, political prisoners, people who'd been tortured and killed. And he also talked about the amnesty that he and the National Assembly, which he heads, is offering the military and the police and appealed for the security services and civil servants to swap sides and abandon Maduro. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what's your sense of the rest of Caracas? What's the mood there elsewhere as this is all playing out? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, you know, the reception at that rally was warm. And there were, you know, some big cheers. And people chanted, president, president, and yet it felt subdued. And if you talk to Guiado's supporters, they they do say they see this as a key moment of change. But no one seems entirely confident. And you sort of see that and feel that if you drive around the city. A lot of the city's quieter than usual. You see more soldiers and National Guard around on the streets. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: The presidential palace where Maduro's based has more soldiers outside of it than before, although today I saw people in red T-shirts and red baseball caps going into the palace. Presumably, that's the uniform of the Chavistas that support the Maduro government. And presumably, they were heading for counter-rally in the palace in favor of Maduro, who says he's not going anywhere and that he's the victim of an attempted coup masterminded by the U.S. - a view which, by the way, is shared by Russia and others of his international allies. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, you know, speaking of the U.S., on Wednesday, Maduro severed relations with the U.S. and gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave. That deadline expires tomorrow. What is happening with them? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, the U.S. Embassy's up in the hills that overlooks Caracas. I went up there today. It's very quiet. The embassy is, of course, heavily fortified, as they always are. Maduro has said that the diplomats within it must leave Sunday and close the embassy. The U.S. says it doesn't recognize that order from Maduro because they say Maduro is no longer president in Washington's eyes. Nonessential staff and families have actually left, they did so yesterday. But the rest of the mission is staying. And Juan Guiado says that, as interim president, they have his permission to do so. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: So we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. If Maduro chooses to make this into some form of showdown, he's taking a big risk. The U.S. has made it pretty clear that there'll be strong retaliation if he harms any of its diplomats. And they've said in Washington that no options are off the table. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: That's NPR's Philip Reeves in Caracas. Philip, thanks so much for talking to us. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: You're welcome.

In Venezuela, the U.S.-backed opposition leader is pressing his claim to the presidency even as President Nicolas Maduro makes clear he still holds the crucial support of the nation's military.

In Venezuela erhebt der von den USA unterstützte Oppositionsführer Anspruch auf die Präsidentschaft, auch wenn Präsident Nicolas Maduro deutlich macht, dass er immer noch die entscheidende Unterstützung des Militärs der Nation hat.

在委内瑞拉，这位美国支持的反对派领导人对总统之位势在必得，即使总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗总统明确表示他仍然拥有国家军队的重大支持。

MELISSA BLOCK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: And I'm Robert Siegel. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Ten former ambassadors gathered this week in Washington at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - five former U.S. ambassadors to Moscow and five former Russian ambassadors to Washington. The occasion? This year, marks the 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries and they issued a joint statement calling for greater cooperation. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Two of those retired diplomats sat down to speak with us. Jack Matlock was ambassador to what was then the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era. Yuli Vorontsov was Russia's ambassador to the United States in the 1990s. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: I asked each former envoy, how he would sum up in this post, post-cold war era his country's main interest in dealing with the other. Jack Matlock said, controlling nuclear weapons and fighting terrorism. Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Both of these are the primary threats to American security, the primary threats to Russian security, and our interests I think totally converge. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Yuli Vorontsov, do you agree that, well, as far as Russia is concerned, are those your main interests and dealings with the United States in terms of nuclear weapons? Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Absolutely. I agree with Jack. And that is foremost I would say the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, since we are now on the verge of real proliferation. After Pakistan, and after India, and after maybe Iran, the weapons will go on absolutely all over the world. It's cheap nowadays. So it's very important to stop that process and we are allies now on this matter. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: All of the retired ambassadors are allies. Are the current governments in Washington and Moscow allied, say, in dealing with Iranian - the Iranian nuclear program and what we should do about it? Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Well, it's a very complicated problem for the United States and for Russia. We're neighbors, as a matter of fact, to Iran - pretty close neighbors, and has long history of relationship between Russia and Iran. And that's why sometimes it's easier for the Americans to say let's have some kind of new resolutions. Let's pressure Iran and so on. But we are neighbors. For us, it's sometimes difficult to have that frontal approach to this problem. But, basically, we are on the same side with the United States. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Jack Matlock, do you see that same (unintelligible). Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Actually, it's inevitable we're going to disagree on the tactics used. And I - honestly, I must say that I think that many Americans have trouble really putting themselves in the Russian position on a number of these issues. And both governments have tended to be distracted by issues that, though, perhaps important in certain contexts, are nowhere nearly as important as the central issues. And I think that's our problem today. We're arguing about all sorts of things that are not nearly as important as the central fact that we have a joined interest in dealing with terrorism, nuclear weapons, proliferation and the horrible prospect that terrorists can get access to nuclear weapons. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: I'm just curious. Each of you ran his country's most important embassy - one in Washington, one in Moscow. Looking back on your time, you were responsible for informing your own government of what was going on in that country, is there anything that you regret looking back that you didn't quite get. If you'd been able to articulate something that was going on in the country where you were serving and get that through to your home government, you would feel more satisfied today? Anything like that. Jack Matlock? Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Not really. Because, you know, the big dispute in Washington in my day was whether Gorbachev was for real, as to whether his reforms were going to make a difference. The leading people in our intelligence establishment thought that he was certainly a more effective leader who had the same goals. Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Increasingly, as we were watching the country, we were convinced in the embassy that he was different and that he was pushing the country in a radically different direction, it kept changing. And conveying that, I think, we thought was one of our principal goals, along with projecting to the Soviet people the feeling that the United States is not a threat. We need to lower arms. We need to do the things that both of our presidents were trying to do. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Could you see how weak the bonds holding the old republics of the Soviet Union to Russia were at that time? Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Yes, we did. And I sent my first message saying that we should make contingency plans for the possible breakup of the Soviet Union in June 1990, 18 months before it happened. And the reason I did, I saw Russian sentiment moving in a direction that they wanted to get rid of the other republics because they were not going along with the reforms that Russia wanted, and that was a key thing. And that's another thing people often forget, and the bottom line, it was Russia that finished off the Soviet Union. It certainly was not American pressure, but it was really Russia that put that final nail on the coffin. I don't know whether Yuli would agree, but… Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Yeah. Well, definitely, I would agree. But I always wondered when here in the United States they said the American victory over Russia. That that's the United States' doing and that kind of things, the disintegration of the (unintelligible). ROBERT SIEGEL, host: The triumph of the Cold War - the triumph in the Cold War was the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Yes. I mean, not at all. Not at all. We did it ourselves to ourselves, as a matter of fact, voluntarily. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: In your stint here as ambassador in Washington, are there things which, in hindsight, you wish you had gotten better for your cables back to Moscow? Any regret to that? Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Since your country was not disintegrating, I had an easier job. But you had your problems here. In the election campaign sometimes, strange election campaigns. And - well, previously, when I was the Minister Counselor in the Soviet time, the Nixon affair and all of that happened with Nixon was difficult for Moscow to understand. And I had to - in my cables, unless there was a way at that time. I'm ambassador and I was charge d'affaires and that's why it was on my shoulders to explain the situation in Washington and disintegration of Nixon. So sometimes it takes a lot to convince your own capital that things are just like this seem. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Were you here for the Clinton impeachment as well and - or did you come right after that in the '90s? Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): No. No. I… ROBERT SIEGEL, host: You were… Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): …I was here, and I was here during Vietnam War and that kind of things. And, my goodness, that was quite an explanation I have to make to Moscow - what's going on. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Well, former Russian ambassador to the United States Yuli Vorontsov and former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, as it was, Jack Matlock. ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Thank you both very much for talking with us. Mr. YULI VORONTSOV (Former Russian Ambassador to the United States): Thank you. Mr. JACK MATLOCK (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union): Thank you.

This week, 10 former ambassadors from Russia and the United States gathered in Washington at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Robert Siegel talks with two former diplomats involved in the Cold War: Jack Matlock was a U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era; Yuly Vorontsev was Russia's ambassador to the United States in the 1990s.

Diese Woche versammelten sich 10 ehemalige Botschafter aus Russland und der Vereinigten Staaten in Washington beim Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Robert Siegel spricht mit zwei ehemaligen Diplomaten des Kalten Krieges: Jack Matlock war US-Botschafter während der Gorbatschow-Ära in der Sowjetunion; Yuly Worontsev war in den 1990er Jahren russischer Botschafter in den USA.

本周，10位来自俄罗斯和美国的前大使齐聚华盛顿卡内基国际和平基金会。罗伯特·西格尔与两位卷入冷战的前外交官交谈：杰克·马特洛克是戈尔巴乔夫时期美国驻苏联大使；尤利·沃龙采夫是上世纪90年代俄罗斯驻美国大使。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The genealogy company Ancestry has removed and apologized for an ad that featured a fictional pre-Civil War romance between a black woman and a white man. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) There's a place we can be together - across the border. Will you leave with me? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Then text says - without you, the story stops here. As many people pointed out on social media, the ad overlooks the fact that during slavery, many relationships between black women and white men were forced, not consensual. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Ancestry is just the latest company to stumble over a racially offensive advertising campaign. A couple of years ago, Nivea tried the tag line white is purity. Last year, Ram trucks aired a Super Bowl ad that paired a Martin Luther King speech with the line built to serve. And just a few months ago, Gucci apologized for a turtleneck sweater that depicted blackface. So why does this keep happening? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Well, Nikole Hannah-Jones, reporter for The New York Times, focuses on racial injustice and joins us to discuss that question. Hi. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: Hi. How are you? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I'm fine. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So how would you answer that question? Why does this keep happening? You would think that businesses would learn from the mistakes of people who have done this before. And yet, they seem to keep stepping in it. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: I mean, I think it's happening for a few reasons. I think that, in general, we have a very unsophisticated way of understanding race and racism and the history of race and racism in this country. Many people don't really understand, particularly white Americans, that the language that they're using and the depictions that they're coming up for our advertising are offensive. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: I think another reason is, a lot of times, the teams who are coming up with this advertising don't have people of color on the teams or at least people of color who can have a strong, influential role on the campaigns that come out. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We reached out to Ancestry, and they sent us a statement saying, in part, Ancestry is committed to telling important stories from history. This ad was intended to represent one of those stories. We very much appreciate the feedback we have received and apologize for any offense that the ad may have caused. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now, I know you posted on Twitter inviting anyone who worked on or was aware of the ad campaign to send you a message and start a conversation. Did anyone reach out? NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: I heard from a couple of folks, but no one who worked directly on this campaign. What I did hear is more generally about the problems in the ad agencies - that often they are not very diverse and that if there are people of color who serve on these teams, they do not feel empowered enough to push back on some of these campaigns. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: I'm thinking about the catchphrase representation matters and how this may be a pretty specific example of what exactly that catchphrase means. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: Yeah, of course. I mean, when you think about the Ancestry campaign, it is romanticizing slavery. And it is clearly coming from the perspective of someone who wants to make it appear as if the high rates of white ancestry in black Americans' blood could have come from, you know, a loving relationship - which of course it could have - but that's the most unlikely scenario. Had you had a black person on that campaign, the chances that that came out, I think, would have been a lot less. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: How do you think companies can avoid mistakes like this? Because they seem to just keep making them. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: (Laughter) I mean, one, you need to actually have people from diverse racial backgrounds on your marketing teams. I think you need to also have focus groups and introduce these campaigns before you roll them out. And you have to empower the people of color if you do have them on your team. It doesn't do any good if the only people of color on your teams are the least senior, who can raise an objection and that objection is not heard. We also shouldn't let white people off the hook in this case. So a white person who actually has an interest in these things could understand and raise a red flag, as well. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: The whole job of marketing people is to understand and to know the people whom they're marketing to. So in some ways, it just feels like laziness. Like, you didn't actually do the type of research that you probably did in every other aspect of the campaign to see if maybe this wasn't a good idea. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: That's Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times. Thanks so much for talking with us today. NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: Thank you.

In the wake of a racially-insensitive ad by Ancestry, NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Nikole Hannah-Jones, a race and culture reporter for The New York Times Magazine, about why this keeps happening.

Nach einer rassistisch unsensiblen Anzeige von Ancestry spricht Ari Shapiro von NPR mit Nikole Hannah-Jones, einer Reporterin für Rasse und Kultur beim New York Times Magazine, darüber, warum dies immer wieder passiert.

在Ancestry刊登了一则种族歧视的广告后，NPR新闻的阿里·夏皮罗与《纽约时报》杂志的种族和文化记者尼科尔·汉娜-琼斯讨论了为什么这种情况一直在发生。

STEVE INSKEEP, host: Oh, let's check in with another holiday traveler - Russian President Vladimir Putin. He's making his first visit in two years to the neighboring country of Ukraine. And his trip is a sign that relations may be warming slightly. No pun intended, because relations were much worse a year ago when Moscow shut off natural gas supplies during a bitter winter cold spell. STEVE INSKEEP, host: Let's go to NPR's Gregory Feifer, who is covering this story. Gregory, the last time that Putin visited Ukraine, the political situation was very different. How have things changed? GREGORY FEIFER: Well, the last time the Western-leaning Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko met Putin, he'd just won the presidency after the Orange Revolution. Yushchenko defeated Viktor Yanukovich, the man Putin had publicly backed. The Orange Revolution was a big scare for the Kremlin, which accused Western countries of trying to hurt its relations with its neighbor. But now pro-Western Viktor Yanukovich is back as prime minister and is locked in a bitter power struggle with President Yushchenko. GREGORY FEIFER: Yanukovich is against Yushchenko's desire for Ukraine to join NATO, and he wants to improve relations with Russia. So Putin will probably get a warm reception from the prime minister, and I think the Kremlin is upbeat about that and it feels it has influence in Kiev once again. STEVE INSKEEP, host: Although let's talk about the two presidents here. Yushchenko, who you mentioned, was poisoned, apparently, during his campaign for office a couple of years ago. Moscow was against him. Moscow was suspected of some kind of involvement in the poisoning. Are these two presidents actually going to meet? GREGORY FEIFER: Yes, they are going to meet. Now Yushchenko hasn't accused Moscow of trying to poison him, although there are all sorts of suspicions, but I don't think they will - the two leaders will discuss that. The key issue between the two countries is really energy. When Moscow temporarily shut down its gas pipelines during a pricing dispute last winter, as you mentioned, it seriously affected crucial supplies to Europe. A key part of the deal ending the crisis was the supply of gas from Turkmenistan, whose president died this week. There are now fears of political instability there, and I think Putin and Yushchenko will surely want to discuss how that may affect gas exports. But Kiev says no energy deals will be reached, and formally the two leaders will only sign some minor agreements and discuss general political and economic relations. STEVE INSKEEP, host: Gregory, in a moment we're going to talk more about Turkmenistan - the president who died, and a gas-rich republic, and what that means for the region. But first, let's talk about Russia. Very briefly, how powerful are they because they're such a big energy exporter to so much - so many of their neighbors? GREGORY FEIFER: Well, energy exports are huge to Russia. The Kremlin sees oil and gas as the key to its bid to becoming a major power, and it's consolidating state control over the industry. Moscow wants to gain control over Ukrainian pipelines, through which most of Russian exports flow to Europe. And the Kremlin doesn't appear frightened of international criticism. Yesterday the state natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, signed a deal to take control over the country's largest foreign investment, the massive Sakhalin II Gas Complex in the Russian Far East. The $22 billion project was headed by Royal Dutch Shell, which is relinquishing control after months of pressure from the Russian government. STEVE INSKEEP, host: Okay, that's NPR's Gregory Feifer. Gregory, always good to talk to you. Thanks very much. GREGORY FEIFER: Thank you.

Russian President Vladimir Putin makes his first visit to Ukraine in nearly two years. It's a sign that relations are warming between the two countries. Just last year Moscow shut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine during a bitter winter cold spell.

Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin stattet der Ukraine seinen ersten Besuch seit fast zwei Jahren ab. Es ist ein Zeichen dafür, dass sich die Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern erwärmen. Erst im vergangenen Jahr hatte Moskau während eines bitterkalten Winters die Erdgaslieferungen an die Ukraine eingestellt.

俄罗斯总统普京近两年来首次访问乌克兰。这表明两国关系正在升温。就在去年，莫斯科在寒冬期间切断了对乌克兰的天然气供应。

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And let's listen to some voices of climate change skeptics. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Climate is changing naturally. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: It has to do with sunspots, and it has to do with the wobble of the earth. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: These are voices from the fossil fuel industry and the industry of advocates who speak for them. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: We need more data. The science isn't there to make that determination. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: There is no need for us to rush to this kind of judgment. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #5: CO2 is a benefit to plant life. It's increasing the bounty and the productivity of the planet, our ability to feed populations in this world. What you're seeing here is... MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: That's from a new documentary film that looks into the world of climate change deniers, their campaign to sway public opinion and the business interests behind them. It's called "Merchants Of Doubt." It's inspired by the book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. Joining me here in the studio is the film's director, Robert Kenner, who also directed the documentary "Food Inc." Welcome to the program. ROBERT KENNER: Thanks, Melissa, great to be here. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And, Robert, you are drawing a direct link in your movie between deniers of climate change and people who, in years past, also denied the harm of tobacco. What is the connection there? ROBERT KENNER: Well, really, people who had defended tobacco when they knew for 50 years their product caused cancer and was addictive, they were able to create doubt and say we need more studies, we need more time, when they knew what their product did. They knew before anyone else because big corporations have to have good science. ROBERT KENNER: And so they knew their product was deadly, but they couldn't say it doesn't cause cancer 'cause that's an out-and-out lie. But they could say we need more study and, you know, it can be used now for any industry. And the big money maker at this point and the big payday is climate and energy, and that's why it's out there. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And you quote a line from a consultant's - a PR firm's report to the tobacco industry, (reading) doubt is our product - was their line. ROBERT KENNER: And then one man, who was so skillful in slowing down legislation on the slow-burning cigarette, saying it wasn't cigarettes that caused house fires, it was couches. And he went on to make it where we had to have laws to put these chemicals in couches and... MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Flame retardants. ROBERT KENNER: ...flame retardants. And he went on to say, if you can do tobacco, you can do anything. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Is it the same cast of characters though who were lobbying or supporting the tobacco industry and are also denying climate change? ROBERT KENNER: It's many of the same people, and it's almost identical playbook. And I think that's what we try to lay out is how you can just see this pattern used over and over and over again. And as they say, they don't have to win, they just have to create doubt and delay. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: There's a moment in the film where you interview climate scientist James Hansen, who's been one of the strongest voices sounding the alarm about the risks of climate change, the real dangers, and he admits to you that scientists make lousy communicators. They're just not good at selling the science of what they're trying to explain. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: But you contrast that with a man named Marc Morano. He's a climate change skeptic. He's frequently on TV. He runs the blog Climate Depot. And he was really clear with you about his tactics. Let's take a listen to what he said. MARC MORANO: You go up against a scientist, most of them are going to be in their own little sort of policy-wonk world or area of expertise, very arcane, very hard to understand, hard to explain and very boring. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And on TV, he, Marc Morano, is not boring. MARC MORANO: Bottom line, new study in the journal Nature, peer-reviewed - no change in U.S. drought in the last 60 years. Bottom line, a new study out... MARC MORANO: You can't be afraid of the absolute hand-to-hand combat metaphorically... MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: So what is that hand-to-hand combat that he's talking about there? ROBERT KENNER: Well, Marc - his theory is that you go after the scientist and you attack them personally. Go after the messenger. So all of a sudden, our scientists become the targets, and I think that's very unfortunate. These are not people who have an agenda. These are people who are ultimately working 80 hours a week. ROBERT KENNER: James Hansen had very little interest in going on camera with me 'cause he'd much rather be doing his science. And I think it's not the job of the scientists to represent themselves on television 'cause they're busy doing the work. And they can't compete with the Marc Moranos of the world, who are quite charming, quite funny, quite fast and have studied PR techniques in a way that the scientists have not. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: I'm talking with Robert Kenner. His new film is "Merchants Of Doubt." In the introduction, I mentioned Naomi Oreskes who wrote the book that inspired your film. She's a Harvard professor of the history of science, and she frames this as a much broader battle. NAOMI ORESKES: None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government. So in a number of places, we actually found these people saying they see environmentalists as creeping communists. They see them as reds under the bed. They call them watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. And they worry that environmental regulation will be a slippery slope to socialism. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And you have a number of clips that illustrate that of people saying, at the end of the Cold War, we threw these people out the window red. They've walked back in the front door green. How common is that message? ROBERT KENNER: We found numerous clips of people going on television - Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh holding up a watermelon and calling them watermelons. So at some point, environmentalists became the new enemy. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: If it's not about the science though, as Naomi Oreskes claims - but it's about politics, it's about your worldview, what tribe you belong to - it doesn't seem that there's much that a film like yours could do to change people's minds. ROBERT KENNER: Well, I think, you know, first of all, I think tribes move. You know, they're not static entities. You see what's happened with the gay marriage situation. Republicans and Democrats were opposed to it in '08, and all of a sudden it becomes acceptable very quickly. I think as people start to realize that this is not an issue that's an ideological issue - it's really about the planet, and the science is there - that they'll want to change. You know, the real debate will be, what are we going to do about it? MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Was there ever a moment when you questioned the science or the tactics of the environmental movement? Anything you learned from the climate change deniers that gave you pause, made you think, well, you know, some in the environmental movement have gone too far in trying to make their case? ROBERT KENNER: Yeah, I think sometimes people can overreact, and it alienates another group of people. If you overstate your case sometimes, you're going to turn people off. And representing things as totally dire when they aren't could be misleading. We are capable of coming up with solutions if we put our mind to it, but at the same time, we tend to not want to think about this as a problem. And that's not about ideology, that's about all of us. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: How easy or how difficult was it to get folks on the denier's side of climate change to talk to you for this film? They must've known you had a point of view here that was not going to agree with theirs. ROBERT KENNER: Yeah, I think I was clear in representing myself. I had made "Food Inc." and people had seen that. And - but I was open to hearing how they did what they did and why they did what they did. But not everybody wanted to appear in the film. There was the man who had been responsible for putting chemicals - flame retardants - into the couches and baby clothing who hadn't spoken to reporters, and he returned my call to my surprise. And when I said that we're doing more than just a film about tobacco and flame retardants, it's also about climate, he said to me, you know, you could take James Hansen, the world's leading climate scientist, and I could take a garbage man, and I could get America to believe that garbage man knows more about science. And he's been very successful at what he does, and there's a group of these people who've been very successful. And hopefully we can get to the real debate, not this sort of fake debate. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Robert Kenner, director of the film "Merchants Of Doubt." Thanks for coming in. ROBERT KENNER: Thank you.

NPR's Melissa Block speaks to director Robert Kenner about his documentary, "Merchants of Doubt," which examines the work of climate change skeptics and their campaign to sway public opinion.

Melissa Block von NPR spricht mit dem Regisseur Robert Kenner über seinen Dokumentarfilm "Merchants of Doubt (Händler des Zweifels)", der die Arbeit von Klimawandelskeptikern und ihre Kampagne zur Beeinflussung der öffentlichen Meinung untersucht.

NPR的梅丽莎·布洛克向导演罗伯特·肯纳讲述了他的纪录片《贩卖怀疑的商人》，该纪录片考察了气候变化怀疑论者的工作及其影响公众舆论的活动。

NEAL CONAN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. NEAL CONAN, host: Michigan joins Florida to quash a revote. Former candidate Bill Richardson finally ends the guessing game. Hillary Clinton criticizes Barack Obama's former pastor and admits she misspoke about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. John McCain says it's not the government's job to bail out banks or small borrowers either. And Senator Obama takes a vacation. NEAL CONAN, host: It's Wednesday and time for another edition of the Political Junkie. President RONALD REAGAN: There you go again. Representative GERALDINE FERRARO (Democrat, New York): My name is Geraldine Ferraro. Representative GERALDINE FERRARO (Democrat, New York): Vice President WALTER MONDALE: When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, Where's the Beef? President RICHARD NIXON: You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore. Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts): I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty. Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts): President GEORGE W. BUSH: But I'm the decider. Governor HOWARD DEAN (Democrat, Vermont): Byaah. NEAL CONAN, host: And the big news this week is that Ken Rudin is in political rehab. He's drying out in Florida, but no fear, we have a worthy guest junkie with us, Matt Bai, of The New York Times magazine, joins us to digest the week's political news issue this week: Governor Richardson endorsement, Senator Clinton's attack on Reverend Wright, Senator McCain on the credit crunch, the fate of Michigan and Ohio delegates still up in the air and the increasingly daunting arithmetic for Republicans in Congress. NEAL CONAN, host: A bit later, we'll focus on a question that's been floating around the political jabber-sphere: If Hillary Clinton's chances to win the nomination range between slim and none, should she drop out for the good of the party? We'll talk with a writer who says, you've got to be kidding. NEAL CONAN, host: Later in the hour, sure, they liven up bumper-to-bumper commute, but do political bumper stickers actually work? And of course, we live in a town that puts on bumper stickers the day after the election. NEAL CONAN, host: But first, we'll catch up on the week's political news. If you want to get in on the conversation, 800-9898-255. E-mail us talk@npr.org. You can join the conversation on our blog too, that's at npr.org/blogofthenation. NEAL CONAN, host: Matt Bai is with us here in the Studio 3A. He covers politics for The New York Times magazine and wrote "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics." NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks for coming in and being courageous enough to step in to Mr. Rudin's shoes. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): I'm glad to help out. I hope Ken's having a good time on some beach some place. NEAL CONAN, host: We're in a bit of a campaign lull with Pennsylvania still weeks away, enough of a lull for Senator Obama to go on a Caribbean vacation at least for a few days. But not before he received the endorsement of former presidential candidate Bill Richardson, who is, of course, being heavily wooed by both candidates. Is this a big deal? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Well, I don't know that the endorsement is a big deal at this point but the timing was certainly helpful. Obama's made a pattern of this, and I think it's very smart. What they've done is there've been moments where the strength of his candidacy as sort of an anti-establishment figure has been in peril and they have been able to draw on establishment figures from Ted Kennedy, which was a huge one, but also a lot of governors who are very well thought of, to come out of those moments and sort of reassure people and say this is the guy I'd still vote for, I'd still support. It's important with voters and it's important with superdelegates. And so here he had just gone through this race trauma, and it really was a difficult moment for the campaign. It wasn't clear which way it's going to go, it's still difficult. But for someone like Bill Richardson at that moment to step forward and say, you know, I'm still with the guy, I still think he's a credible candidate and I'd still vote for him. I think that the timing of that means more than it does the endorsement because I don't how many people are going to run out and vote the way Bill Richardson tells them to. NEAL CONAN, host: Didn't stop James Carville from calling him Judas. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Well, James is James. He's going to say - he's going to tend toward the outrageous, and we journalists like that about him. But I do think he actually articulated probably the emotional stance inside the Clinton world. I mean, this is a guy, Richardson, who Bill Clinton gave not one but two very big jobs, just stood by him when he had a very rocky tenure at the Energy Department. And I'm sure you could understand putting yourself in the Clinton shoes, how they would say, you know, how much ingratitude can you show? And I think, I don't think it's only Governor Richardson who they feel this way about him, there're a lot of Democratic figures who they feel owe them better than they've gotten during this campaign. NEAL CONAN, host: And you mentioned the race problems for Senator Obama. This, of course, Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, Junior I should say, his former pastor after being quiet for quite some time. Last night, Senator Clinton responded and said, look, we can't choose our relatives, we can choose our pastors in our churches - he would not have been my choice. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah, and you can see what they are thinking here. I mean, look, they have a very, as you said in the beginning of the show, they have a very narrow pathway now to the nomination. And the most likely route that they have because she's not going to catch him in delegates, she's not going to catch up in popular vote, is that at the end of this thing, she comes out pulling ahead of him that his campaign seems imperiled and that she's able to say look, you know, I'm ahead in the national polls, we basically had to draw in the delegates, you know, do the right thing by the party and go to me. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): And so, I think, you know, they need to weaken him. They need to weaken him dramatically and this is an issue that resonates. It's a problem for him because it goes to the core of his argument, to Democratic voters, which is that he is a unifying force, a bridger of racial divisions. This was a bad moment for him and they're going to try to escalate it because, I think, they have no choice. NEAL CONAN, host: The other Hail Mary pass, the hopes that maybe Michigan and Florida might revote and give her another chance to maybe catch up a little. Well, that seemed to have fallen incomplete. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah, this is a - they're going to have to do something about this problem. You know, it'll take smarter people (unintelligible) to figure out what but they can't realistically go to the convention with these empty seats on the delegate floor and have all these cameras showing it. And I think Howard Dean kind of needs to step up here. I mean, I'm told that, you know, pretty reliably that he's trying to do this behind the scenes. He has an aversion as chairman of the party to press coverage. He thinks he's more credible doing this behind the scenes and maybe he's doing that and that's fine. But I think this is getting to the point where it's going to be very, very linked to his legacy as a party chairman. He's already under fire for not raising enough money for the Democratic National Committee. If this thing gets more twisted and really is a meltdown for the party over this two states, people are going to be asking why the chairman of the party didn't either himself or by appointing some sage within the party get to this sooner and find a solution at the table because this really does have volcanic possibilities. NEAL CONAN, host: Our guest political junkie this week is Matt Bai. And again, if you'd like to join us, 800-989-8255, e-mail is talk@npr.org. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to Lou(ph), and Lou is calling us from Medford in New Jersey. LOU (Caller): Hi. I'd like to know if Matt has any insight as to why John Edwards has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton. And as a follow-up question, what about John Edwards' delegates in either case? NEAL CONAN, host: John Edwards did come out of seclusion to appear with Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show," but didn't endorse anybody. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah, it's a good question Lou raises because that is one of the few remaining endorsements out there, I think, Edwards and perhaps Al Gore, that could have a real influence in the race. I only know - I've not talked to Senator Edwards and he hasn't talked to very many people. I only know what I've heard. And what I've heard, and I think it's pretty reliable, is that he's actually a little torn on this because he was never a big fan of the Clintons. He made a strong argument against her and for change. He - in particular against the war and for some of the issues that Senator Obama's more likeminded on with him. But that he really has doubts about Senator Obama's candidacy that he feels he's inexperienced and… NEAL CONAN, host: Also, the voters that he was trying to appeal to, the lower income, blue-collar Democrats - they're voting for Hillary Clinton. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah, some of them are although he also had a very strong progressive activist base and so most of those people went to Senator Obama. So I think it's a case where he's caught a little bit in between and probably, frankly, keeps more cache by holding on at this point and not endorsing. So I don't expect him to endorse anytime really soon. NEAL CONAN, host: The other part of Lou's question: Are the delegates that John Edwards won in Iowa and other places, are they effectively superdelegates now? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): I don't know that I would put it that way, he's not, to my knowledge, he's not sort of released them which is a technicality. He's not said go vote for whoever they want. NEAL CONAN, host: Well, they could vote for whoever they want anyway? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): They can but traditionally how this works is that they might hold on or at least most of them, and he might be able to swing them one way or the other before the convention. And I presume if there's an obvious nominee, he would swing them that way. So, you know, yes, if this thing comes down to the convention and every delegate count, I suspect those votes may count in the same way as superdelegates. But I can also see, prior to that time, Senator Edwards sort of throwing his support behind what would most likely be Senator Obama if it appears that he's kind of summing the thing up. NEAL CONAN, host: Lou, thanks very much for the call. LOU (Caller): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And interestingly, Matt, in a way, might the most interesting political news of the week be playing out on the streets not of Pittsburgh or Pottstown, Pennsylvania, but on the streets of Basra, in Iraq where the prime minister there, Nouri al-Maliki, is challenging Muqtada al-Sadr? All of our assumptions about this race are that the Iraq War remains more or less where it is now? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Right. I mean, much as I love conspiracy theories that ascribe to the media all the power to decide what campaigns are about, the truth is that they're almost always swayed by things we can't foresee. And in fact, Iraq has already made and remade this presidential race because in the initial phases, if you recall, when Iraq was, really seemed to be a mess, it was - John McCain was in very bad shape, Rudy Giuliani was riding very high, John Edwards was doing quite well in opposition. And then you had this period after the surge, where I really think the race was remade because people sensed that the violence was receding, it wasn't in the headlines, the economy was taking over as the key issue, I think without that, Senator McCain would not have been able to rise, become the nominee. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): And so there is always the danger that it moves back again, right, that Iraq falls into greater chaos, which would be very bad news, I think, for John McCain because he is really riding on the idea that he had the right strategy, that he stood behind it when it mattered, and that he knows how to control things in Iraq. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): And of course, any worsening of the situation is just bad for Republicans, generally, and better for the Democrats who have opposed the war. So it's a great unknown, just like terrorism is a great unknown, and has the potential to remake the campaign once, maybe twice more before we're done. NEAL CONAN, host: Speaking of unpredictability, imagine terrorism, the conventional thinking all along has been, should there be - God forbid - another attack, it would help the Republicans. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah. I don't know - I really don't know that that's true anymore. I think that that has been true in the past, but I think there is such distrust and dissatisfaction with Republican foreign policy of the Bush administration, that at this point should and we all hope, it's not going to happen, but should there be another terrorist attack against Americans, I think a lot of voters would probably look and say, you know what, all this we've put up with, and you didn't keep us safe. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): I think that's the one thing that Bush has held onto, that this president has held onto is the notion that he has kept the country safe from another attack. And I'm not at all sure that another terrorist incident would play to the Republican strength. I think, at best, it would be awash. NEAL CONAN, host: Let me ask about the congressional races now, New York Republican Representative Tom Reynolds, who represents a district in Buffalo, New York, announced he would not seek reelection this year to the seat he's held for five terms, a close race for him. NEAL CONAN, host: Last time around, he was once considered, well, maybe another speaker of the House. As more and more Republicans decide not to run for reelection, this, Matt, gets very difficult for them. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Very difficult. In the Senate and in the House, it's a bad year for Republicans, conceivably the worst since - after Watergate. And this is critically important, actually. This is going to lose a lot of oxygen though. People aren't going to pay as much attention to this during the presidential, but it is critically important because what we're talking about a presidential race - particularly for Democrats are some very sweeping programmatic changes, right, in health care and in the economy… NEAL CONAN, host: Immigration. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): …taxes, immigration, we're talking about some big legislation that has almost zero chance of passing under the current legislative conditions. If Democrats were to get a 10-seat majority in the Senate, a bigger majority in the House, then they might be able to put together the numbers necessary to do some of the more sweeping things that they're talking about. And then, you know, what these policies are and how they break down is really important. So I think it's important anyway but it becomes much more realistic if - well, as you start to see those numbers tilt toward Democrats. NEAL CONAN, host: Coming up, more with our guest political junkie, Matt Bai and a question for all you mini-junkies out there: As Senator Clinton's odds of winning the Democratic nomination get longer, does encouraging her to drop out short-circuit the democratic process? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. E-mail us talk@npr.org. And again, you can go check out what other listeners have to say on our blog at npr.org/blogofthenation. 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: It's Political Junkie day, and though Ken Rudin is on vacation at an undisclosed vacation, we've got guest junkie Matt Bai working hard. There's been a bit of a drumbeat in recent days that it will soon be time for Senator Clinton to accept that she's unlikely to win the nomination and cease what some observers fear would be a scorched-earth, last-ditch campaign that would just divide the party and make life easier for John McCain and the Republicans. NEAL CONAN, host: Of course, that comes before Pennsylvania primary, Senator Clinton is widely expected to win. Throughout it all, Senator Clinton's been remained adamant that she will not drop out. Yesterday, campaigning in Pennsylvania, she repeated her point. Senator HILLARY CLINTON (Democrat, New York; Presidential Candidate): Wait and see is what happens in the next three months, and there's been a lot of talk about what if, what if, what if, let's wait until we get some facts. People are going to vote over the next months. Millions of people are going to vote, and we should wait and see the outcome of those votes. NEAL CONAN, host: Senator Hillary Clinton speaking yesterday in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. So should she really think about quitting or is this just a ploy from the Obama camp? Our number here in Washington is 800-989-8255. E-mail talk@npr.org. You can also comment on our blog, that's at npr.org/blogofthenation. NEAL CONAN, host: And joining us to discuss this is Leslie Bennetts, the author of "The Feminine Mistake," who wrote an op-ed earlier this month in the Los Angeles Times called, "Go Away, Why Should She?" Leslie Bennetts joins us from our bureau in New York. NEAL CONAN, host: Nice to have you on the program today. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: And you argued that there's all kinds of reasons that Hillary Clinton should ignore all of this talk and just stay in the race? Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Well, several weeks ago, when I wrote that op-ed, she had just done very well in Ohio and Texas, and she's been running neck and neck with Obama. He does have a slight lead, but what I find fascinating about this whole debate is that I think that it is largely motivated by deeply entrenched double standards that we hold for women that are largely unconscious. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): If a man were running neck and neck with Obama, I don't think - a white man, let's say, I don't think people would be calling for him to sacrifice his own interest to the good of the party, whereas the model of female self-sacrifice is something that is deeply embedded in our culture. And we have David Brooks yesterday in The New York Times saying, well, her chances of winning the nomination are down to 5 percent, so she should step aside for the good of the party and sacrifice her goals. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Now, in the male world, the model of competition in whether it's in sports or politics is, you fight to the finish, you never give up, you don't call the World Series in the sixth inning of a decisive game because one team is leading. If they'd done that in the Super Bowl, the Giants would not have won the Super Bowl. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): So we're very familiar with the model when we're talking about male competitions that it ain't over until it's over. And yet when a woman candidate comes along, suddenly, just as in marriage, people expect women to sacrifice their own economic, professional, intellectual and creative interests for the good of the husband's career or for the good of the family or for taking care of the elderly parents or whatever. You know, on a national level, we're watching Hillary and all of a sudden, everybody thinks that the woman should sacrifice her interests. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Now, what are her interests right now? She is, indeed, widely expected to win the Pennsylvania primary, a major state, and you know, some people have pointed out that the states that she has won are ones that any Democrat is going to need to win the general election. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): So if her interest right now, as we seem to have been given clues by the Clintons that may be gravitating from thinking that she's going to be the first person on the ticket to maybe getting the number two slot, she certainly would have greater leverage to be considered as a vice presidential candidate on the Obama ticket, let's say, if she had just clobbered Obama in Pennsylvania. So her own self-interests very clearly lies in staying in this race for a while. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): And yet, we have near unanimity at this point with the sort of conventional wisdom of the punditocracy is, oh, Hillary should step aside for the good of the party. Now I think that people are mixing up two issues that we should not mix up. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): If you want to say that the Clinton and Obama camps should stop sniping at each other and slicing and dicing and having their underlings do name-calling and snide innuendo and start conducting themselves like ladies and gentlemen, or shall we say simply like grown-ups so that the Democratic Party doesn't, you know, eat itself alive before the general election, I think that's an extremely legitimate point and one that everyone on whatever side should consider. But it's really a different argument. I don't see any reason why Hillary couldn't stay in the race and have the democratic process play itself out according to the rules. As she said, millions of people still has not had a chance to vote yet, so why not see what the outcomes are, and then we'll make our determinations. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): I don't see why the lady should step aside. NEAL CONAN, host: And Matt Bai, I guess that's an analysis that is fine as far as it goes, if you accept that the candidates are actually neck and neck? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Yeah. And I don't - I actually - I don't have a problem with that part of the argument so much. I mean, this is a separate question about whether she should in fact get out, and I think you can make an argument that they're pretty close to neck and neck. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): It's going to go superdelegates either way and neither of them are going to have a majority of delegates necessary prior to that, so I don't know that she should be immediately considered the loser here. I do find the argument of a certain misogyny at play here, very unpersuasive. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): I think it's subconscious. I'm not saying that this is conscious at all. I think it kicks in with the women commentators, as well as men. But somehow, self-sacrifice is something we only seem to demand of women. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Well, that's just not true, Leslie, I mean, if you look in the history of political campaigns, there's always calls for the person running second to get out, and they've always been men, actually. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): That's never been any different in any presidential candidate. Parties always want unity. They always want the second person to get out. It's very hard to argue that she has received unfair treatment as a woman when her opponent is an African-American man. African-Americans would be, you know, certainly have as much claim to oppression as women do in the political culture and in the society as a whole. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): And also, you know, I think you have to remember that Hillary Clinton held herself out for at least 18 months or two years as the inevitable front-runner of her party. The woman… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Clearly an error. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): …who was going to get the nomination. It was an error but… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Tactical mistake. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): But that's the campaign they ran. And so if she gets a higher level of scrutiny or is, you know, seems to have - seems to be less successful than Senator Obama has in the eyes of many pundits or Democrats at this point, it is because they chose to elevate her above the rest of the field, and when you do that, you do risk a higher level of scrutiny and you do risk a different perspective when you start to lose. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): But, I think scrutiny is a really, really key word right here. Who, you know, I've been covering presidential campaigns since the 1970s, and the first thing you learn as a political reporter is that, one 24-hour news cycle is an eternity in politics and none of us know what's going to happen tomorrow. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Who would have predicted a month ago that Eliot Spitzer's career would have been blown up before Easter, and that he would be completely removed from the political landscape? He is gone, and you know, Hillary Clinton learned this lesson very early when she announced her Senate race, everybody scoffed because Rudy Giuliani was expected to be the much stronger candidate, and to be the next senator from New York. And then he developed cancer, and he dropped out of the race, and the Republicans put up a very weak candidate to oppose her, and all of a sudden, she was the senator from New York. And the lesson she must have taken from that race, if she had not learned it previously, is that it ain't over until it's over, and you never know what's going to happen tomorrow. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): The Jeremiah Wright thing has just blown up and has done significant damage to Obama. And as she has been pointing out for a long time, she has been vetted relentlessly for at least the last 16 years, and we're really just starting to scrutinize Obama. We don't really know what might pop out of his past or among his associates. And you know, I don't have a crystal ball; I don't know what's coming up. But in politics, the whole point is, you never know. And I think that biding her time and seeing how it goes and waiting until people vote and preserving her options is, quite obviously, the best strategy for her. NEAL CONAN, host: Now, let's see if we could get a caller in on the conversation. This is Colby(ph). Colby with us from Chicago. COLBY (Caller): Hi. (Unintelligible) question about the short-circuiting of a political process. And while I'm not necessarily a proponent or a non-proponent of her dropping out of the race, my question is, if it's clear that she can't win the popular vote and it's clear that she can't win the delegate vote, what do we say to all of these young voters across the country who have come out and for this election, if the perception is that she won on superdelegates? I have a great fear that the great groundswell of new interests we have in political process from the younger generation, a lot of which, we can credit to Obama, that younger generation is going to feel cheated, feel left out, and feel like we're back, you know, to politics as usual? I'll take my answer off the air. Thanks. NEAL CONAN, host: All right. Colby, thanks very much for the call, and meanwhile, reinforcing Matt's earlier point, it's going to come down to the superdelegates for either candidate. If Senator Obama wins, he's going to win with the votes of superdelegates, as well as if Senator Clinton wins, she's going to win with the votes of superdelegates. The popular vote is another issue, but anyway, Leslie Bennetts, what do you think? Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Well, you know, I think that Hillary right now is not thinking in her secret heart of hearts, about being the nominee. I think she's reconsidering her options, you know, I'm just watching as we're all watching. She hasn't told me this personally, I haven't interviewed her in several years, but I think that her, you know, judging by what the Clintons have been floating lately, I think that they're trying to respond to changing circumstances and the goal is becoming different. So, you know, I think that Obama probably will be at the top of the ticket and all of those young and hopeful, eager beaver Obama, you know, would-be voters will not be disappointed. But, you know, if the question is, should she bail out, well, she would like to stay in the game in some capacity, which I think mostly highly competitive, you know, political animals would. NEAL CONAN, host: Let's go to Hilary. Hilary is calling us from Rock Hill, South Carolina. NEAL CONAN, host: I assume your last name is not Clinton? Ms. HILARY YOST (Caller): It is not Clinton, it is Yost. NEAL CONAN, host: Go ahead, please. Ms. HILARY YOST (Caller): I just wanted to say, I've been on a lot of the blogs and on her Web site, a lot of woman writing in. I think one of the big reasons that she's still in and has to stay in is her core base. You're talking about the entire gender here. And women have always known, they need to work twice as hard, they need to just show that they can do it, and I really feel like she does need to stay in exactly for the point that was made earlier. Look at Eliot Spitzer, we don't know what will happen. And I just feel like were just forgetting about the fact that Obama for a long time escapes scrutiny. And so she has had just, you know, so many things to deal with and I just feel like, she has to stay in. She has to stay in, she needs to stay strong and, you know, there's just no other way about it, and she has so much support. Ms. HILARY YOST (Caller): And I'd also like to make one point, he is not alone with the youth vote, she has a lot of young people for her, a lot of very thoughtful people for her. And you know, I just think she's got to stay in. And I have tried to say, okay, could I go ahead and vote for Obama if it ends up being him. There have been comments, Hillary, you're likable enough. Things that have got, you know, get yelled at her. He's never addressed a lot of the stuff that she takes that he's never had to take. And I think, if he acknowledged that, I might have a little more respect for him, but overall I just feel she has to stay in. And that's the same point that your female guest made - women for too long, you go ahead be the good sports, step out. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): You know, in the L.A. Times, the essay in which I argued that Hillary should stay in the race. I talked about the fact that, you know, dropped out on this conversation a lot of the time is a simple issue of representation. Everybody is so concerned about these young people who are very important to the country's future, who are in many cases Obama's supporters but for some reason nobody seems terribly worried about the 54 percent of the electorate, 52 percent of the population, that are women whose interests are really not represented adequately in our political dialogue, in the policies that are candidates are talking about or, you know, in terms of their leverage with our elected leaders. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): And that there are huge numbers particularly of older women who are deeply, deeply upset about the state of affairs who are very angry about the way that Hillary has been treated in this race. As the female caller just said, nobody is standing in, you know, the audiences and yelling anything at Barack Obama comparable to iron my shirts, which a young man yelled at Hillary the other day. And, you know, the sexism of the way that she has been treated is for the most part not commented on, again by the punditocracy which is dominated by males. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): And there's a, you know, what we see is kind of the tip of the iceberg. I think that the larger body of the iceberg out there are the millions and millions of women of all ages, but particularly older woman who are economically disenfranchised and feel very, very vulnerable, you know, who are really fed up with their interest not being represented and who identify with Hillary, and particularly identify with Hillary when they feel she's being mistreated. NEAL CONAN, host: Hillary, thanks very much for the phone call, appreciate it. HILLARY: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, host: We're talking with Leslie Bennetts, who wrote an op-ed on the Los Angeles Times, "Go Away, Why Should She?" And of course, with our guest political junkie, Matt Bai. NEAL CONAN, host: You're listening to the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, host: So, Matt, does this argument cut ice for you? Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): You know, I have to say the notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what it's like to have people say things to you like iron my shirts which I - and I don't think there's a giant iron-my-shirts movement out there against Hillary Clinton - strikes me as really kind of out of a touch. I mean… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): I never said that Barack Obama had never suffered any kind of discrimination… Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): I mean for what's it like… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Please don't put words into my mouth. NEAL CONAN, host: Okay, but let him answer, we let you talk. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): I mean, I do think, there's a glossing over here what it's like to be an African-American candidate in this country and to be marginalized automatically, I think - I just don't think there's a huge dichotomy here, a double standard based on, you know, racial or gender identity. You know, this… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): Well, cite for me some examples… Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): …this… Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): …of things that people have said that are racist. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): …this (unintelligible) to me of sort of the old identity politics, right, which is people aren't voters, they're just voters, they're segments of voters like they're segmented. I think we should treat women as voters not as women. And, you know, when you look - sure, there are sizeable contingent of women and older women who feel very invested in the Clinton candidacy. There are a sizeable contingent of African-Americans, overwhelming, who feel very invested in Obama's - there are sizeable contingents of white voters on either side who feel that his candidacy. But ultimately this is about, not pockets of voters, gender and race, this is about Democratic voters as a whole. And right now, I do agree, it's a - I think it's a very, very close race. And I do think there's a rationale for her staying in, I absolutely do, and I can see why in her position she would feel that way. But I don't see this is as a face-off between women and men, between black voters, white voters, white man, black woman, whatever it is, I think, we've moved beyond that plane of politics or at least are beginning to. NEAL CONAN, host: Here's an e-mail we have from Laura(ph). I would love for Hillary to be a president. I actually think she would be the better candidate. I contributed to her campaign, however, I think she should step down. Obama is likeable; there are people who hate Hillary. I believe this hate is based on sexism but I really worry about having another Republican president. Honestly, I just think Obama's more electable. NEAL CONAN, host: And Leslie Bennetts, we'll give you the last 30 seconds. Ms. LESLIE BENNETTS (Author, "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"): I think that sexism is really the last prejudice that remains politically acceptable in this country. Everybody knows that it would be entirely unacceptable for somebody to stand in the audience and yell hateful racist things at Barack Obama. But people treat it as a joke when somebody manufactures a Hillary nutcracker with a metal spike between its legs or, you know, does some of the other really hateful things that have been directed at her. And I think it's very easy for men to laugh off these things and say that we're all just people. But when women feel that they're the last category of people who can be insulted like this and nobody thinks it's an issue. Well, some of us mind. NEAL CONAN, host: Leslie Bennetts, author of "The Feminine Mistake." Her op-ed called "Go Away, Why Should She?" appeared in the March 9th edition of the Los Angeles Times. NEAL CONAN, host: Thanks very much for your time today. NEAL CONAN, host: And Matt Bai, sitting in for political junkie Ken Rudin, thanks very much for coming in today. We really appreciate it. Mr. MATT BAI (Columnist, The New York Times Magazine; Author, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"): Glad to do it. Thank you, Neal.

Political writer Matt Bai talks about Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama and the delegate grab-bag in Michigan and Ohio. Author Leslie Bennetts addresses a question that has been rearing its head in the political sphere: Should Clinton drop out of the race?

Der politische Autor Matt Bai spricht über Bill Richardsons Befürwortung von Barack Obama und den Delegierten-Grabbag in Michigan und Ohio. Die Autorin Leslie Bennetts beschäftigt sich mit einer Frage, die in der Politik auftaucht: Sollte Clinton aus dem Rennen ausscheiden?

政治作家马特·白谈到比尔·理查森支持巴拉克·奥巴马，还提及密歇根州和俄亥俄州党代表人员混杂情况。作家莱斯利·本内茨 提出了政治领域一直备受关注的问题：克林顿是否应退出竞选？

STEVE INSKEEP, host: This is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And I'm Renee Montagne. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today called for calm after a night of violent clashes between his supporters and a rival militia in Baghdad in several southern cities. This rift within Iraq's Shia has erupted at an acutely sensitive time. Iraq's politicians are supposed to agree on a draft constitution by midnight tonight. It's still unclear whether they'll do so. The deadline has been extended twice already. We're joined from Baghdad by NPR's Philip Reeves. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And, Philip, information about the fighting between these two Shiite groups is still coming in. What is the latest at this moment? RENEE MONTAGNE, host: PHILIP REEVES reporting: RENEE MONTAGNE, host: There have been reports of violence in several Shiite cities in the south and also Baghdad today. Now this is a conflict between Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi army, and the Badr Brigades. That's a militia linked to the Shiite political party SCIRI, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. You'll recall hundreds of lives were lost last year, some of them American, when Sadr's Mahdi army rose up twice. Now we've been told that in Basra, the TV station run by the Badr Brigades was attacked at dawn today with rocket-propelled grenades and burnt down. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: There's a report that mortars were fired at a SCIRI office in Amarah, which is southwest of Baghdad. And in Baghdad's Sadr City--that's the slum whose several million poor Shiite population form the core of Sadr support--it's tense today. Hundreds of young men have been seen on the streets. There are sporadic gun shots. Yesterday, the Mahdi army attacked three Badr offices in Baghdad, and this morning they burnt down another one. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And how did this start? REEVES: It began in Najaf at the recently re-opened office of Sadr, which is in the middle of the city near the famous Shiite shrine of Imam Ali. Details are unclear and they're disputed. There appears to have been a demonstration by people opposed to Sadr who wanted the office shut down. The Mahdi army refused to leave. Sadr people say this demonstration was an attack on their office and that the Badr Brigades were behind it. The police got involved. And there are allegations the crowd was fired on. Six people in the end were killed and dozens injured. And when the news of that spread, it went through to Baghdad. And within a few hours, there were attacks there on SCIRI and Badr officers. REEVES: These rival Shiite groups, by the way, have been vying for influence for months. There have been--tensions between them have cranked up recently with large demonstrations organized by Sadr to protest against the constitution and, in particularly, the creation of a federal Iraq. SCIRI supports the constitution and its leader also raised the temperature earlier this month by calling for the Shiite south to be made into a large federal entity. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And what kind of reaction has there been to all this? REEVES: Well, I think it's a reflection on how unstable and tense the situation is, that the prime minister, Ibrahim Al-Jafari, appeared on television with an appeal last night for calm. And today in Najaf, Sadr also appeared on TV, also appealing for calm. He said that though he wouldn't forget the attack on his office, Iraq's passing through a difficult period that requires unity. He also, however, demanded that his chief rival, the head of SCIRI, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, condemn the attack on Sadr's Najaf office. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: And just back to the question of the hour, if you will, what's the likelihood that the constitution will go through the National Assembly today, fulfilling the deadline? REEVES: Well, I hesitate to make any prediction, as twice in the last 10 days they have, at the last minute, granted themselves extra time, extending the deadline. There's still no sign, though, that the Sunni Arabs have dropped their objections. And, in fact, today, several Sunni Arab negotiators have been reiterating those objections. There are, however, some who expect the Shiite, who control the parliament--they have the largest number of seats in parliament--will try to force the constitution through and will successfully do so because of their majority. STEVE INSKEEP, host: That's NPR's Philip Reeves speaking with NPR's Renee Montagne.

Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr calls for calm after violent clashes between his supporters and a rival militia. This rift within Iraq's Shia erupted at an acutely sensitive time — Iraq's politicians are supposed to agree on a draft constitution by midnight Thursday.

Der irakische schiitische Geistliche Moqtada al-Sadr ruft nach gewaltsamen Zusammenstößen zwischen seinen Anhängern und einer rivalisierenden Miliz zur Ruhe auf. Diese Kluft innerhalb der irakischen Schiiten brach zu einem äußerst heiklen Zeitpunkt aus – Die irakischen Politiker sollen sich bis Donnerstag um Mitternacht auf einen Verfassungsentwurf einigen.

伊拉克什叶派神职人员萨德尔呼吁在他的支持者和敌对民兵发生暴力冲突后保持冷静。伊拉克什叶派内部的分歧是在一个非常敏感的时刻爆发的—伊拉克的政治家们应该在周四午夜前就宪法草案达成一致。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: President Trump described the conversation as beautiful. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it confirms the need for an impeachment inquiry. Of course, we're talking about the July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The White House released an account of that call this morning. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: According to the White House note takers, President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart for what he called a favor, just as Zelenskiy brought up U.S. defense sales to Ukraine. Trump later pushed Zelenskiy to get Ukraine's prosecutor to open an investigation tied to former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic candidate for president. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Trump is expected to hold a news conference in New York any minute now. Earlier today, the president said what's happening in Washington is, quote, "the single greatest witch hunt in American history." PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The letter was a great letter - meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of myself and other people that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way you had that built up, that call, it was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call other than a lot of people said I never knew you could be so nice. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: One of those echoing the president was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He defended Trump on Twitter, calling the transcript a nothing burger. And he said this to reporters on Capitol Hill. LINDSEY GRAHAM: From my point of view, to impeach any president over a phone call like this would be insane. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Trump had betrayed his oath of office and sacrificed the country's national security in doing so. ADAM SCHIFF: The notes of the call reflect a conversation far more damning than I or many others had imagined. It is shocking at another level that the White House would release this - these notes and felt that somehow this would help the president's case or cause because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

Congressional Democrats' impeachment inquiry is gaining momentum after the White House released an account of the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Die Amtsenthebungsuntersuchung der Demokraten im Kongress gewinnt an Fahrt, nachdem das Weiße Haus einen Bericht über das Telefongespräch zwischen Präsident Trump und dem ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selenski im Juli veröffentlicht hat.

在白宫公布了特朗普总统和乌克兰总统沃洛季米尔·泽伦斯基7月通话记录后，国会民主党人的弹劾调查势头正劲。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: We're about to hear why sports is not always just a game. Brazil is the spiritual home of soccer, and this summer, the country's hosting soccer's biggest tournament. So, what happens if Brazil loses? Here's NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Imagine the moment: the crowds are cheering, the stadium - soccer's most iconic, the Maracana in Rio de Janeiro - is packed. The world is watching on flickering screens everywhere. It's the final, when all of the money, all of the hard work is finally going to pay off for Brazil - except it doesn't. Brazil doesn't win the World Cup. Stay with me. There's a reason for this thought experiment, because history. MARCELO BARRETO: In 1950, when Brazil lost the World Cup, that was a real tragedy. Some very serious sociologists believed that was the defining moment of Brazilian society. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: That's Marcelo Barreto, one of the main sportscasters on SporTV in Brazil. The last time Brazil hosted the World Cup was in 1950, and it lost to Uruguay in the same stadium, the Maracana. MARCELO BARRETO: We didn't have a defining war. We didn't have a defining crisis, but we have a defining football loss. So, they believe that was a very important moment for Brazilian society. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: To understand how important, you only have to go to Sao Paolo's football museum. PELE: Welcome to the football museum. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Walk past famous Brazilian footballer Pele greeting you on a giant screen, and you come to a darkened room, where the moment of that national tragedy, as it's known here, is played out on a loop. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: (Foreign language spoken) LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: To the sound of a beating heart, the narrator tells the story of the 1950 defeat to images from the game: 1-0 to Brazil. The cup is ours, he says, 1-1, the cup is still ours, 2-1 to Uruguay. Brazil's heart stops beating. But that isn't the only World Cup defeat that has had repercussions here. Fast forward to many years later. It's 1998, and after being favorites, Brazil again loses the World Cup in Paris. A stunned Brazil cannot believe it. Speculation runs rife that the team were bought off by Nike, who had big sponsorship deals with many of the players. Congress actually launches an inquiry into the sponsorship deal and many other questions surrounding the final. MAURICIO SAVARESE: We actually had Coach Zagallo go into Congress in Brasilia, Ronaldo go into Congress, and having to explain very bizarre things, such as: Weren't you supposed to mark Zinedine Zidane in the World Cup final? Why didn't you play? Were you paid not to play? LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Mauricio Savarese is a journalist and author here in Brazil. MAURICIO SAVARESE: That shows a bit on how politics and football are well entwined in Brazil, in a way. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Which brings us to today. There has already been loads of controversy surrounding the World Cup in Brazil. Protests broke out last summer, in part over the massive spending that has taken place on white elephant stadiums instead of on health and education. The previous government of Ignacio Lula da Silva bid on the games as a way to bring Brazil the recognition he felt it deserved on the world stage. And his heir, Dilma Rousseff, is up for reelection right after the World Cup finishes. A successful World Cup result - so the thinking goes - will fill the country with national pride and give her a boost. But if Brazil loses... FLAVIO DOS CAMPOS: (Foreign language spoken) LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: I think a defeat of the Brazilian team will throw gasoline on the fire, says Flavio dos Campos, a professor at the University of Sao Paolo, who is an expert on football and politics in Brazil. He says it will be very unfavorable to the government. He predicts Dilma Rousseff - who now has a comfortable lead over her opponents in the polls - will have to go to a second round in the elections and will struggle to win the presidency. Other analysts have said if Brazil doesn't even get into the final, it could fuel the protests that are already expected around the event. So, a lot is riding on how well Brazil's team actually does. SporTV's Marcelo Barreto says, though, that the worries are overblown. MARCELO BARRETO: If it happens - I hope it doesn't - but if it happens, it's going to be a football loss. It's going to last a week, a month. I don't know. Life goes on. LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: But his daughter, 11-year-old Nina Barreto, interrupts his father, and strenuously disagrees. MARCELO BARRETO: People would be, like, going crazy on their heads and throwing their TVs out of the window and screaming and rolling and grabbing the footballers and throwing them out. How did you do that? Why? LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, BYLINE: Barreto laughs and says that's the voice of the younger generation. I disagree. He shrugs and says: But she may be right. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, NPR News, Sao Paolo.

Brazil is the spiritual home of soccer and a world powerhouse in the sport. It's woven into the Brazilian psyche. Wins and losses have had repercussions in other realms — including politics.

Brasilien ist die spirituelle Heimat des Fußballs und ein weltweites Kraftpaket in diesem Sport. Es ist mit der brasilianischen Psyche verwoben. Siege und Verluste hatten Auswirkungen auf andere Bereiche – einschließlich der Politik.

巴西是足球的精神故乡，也是这项运动的世界强国。这已经融入了巴西人的心理。胜利和失败在其他领域产生了影响——包括政治。

MICHELE NORRIS, host: From NPR News, it's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Michele Norris. MICHELE NORRIS, host: It's Thanksgiving Day, and every year that means a short story from Bailey White. We'll hear that in just a few minutes. MICHELE NORRIS, host: In the news today, one focus is the Gulf Coast, a place where gathering with family is more difficult than usual. Even preparing a meal can be a challenge. Try cooking for 6,000 people, for instance. One church group and Red Cross volunteers prepared that many meals for families in New Orleans. NPR's Audie Cornish followed along and has this report. MICHELE NORRIS, host: Unidentified Woman #1: You ready for turkey? MICHELE NORRIS, host: AUDIE CORNISH reporting: MICHELE NORRIS, host: Hundreds of volunteers have cooked and packed since 3 AM this morning. The parking lot at the Calvary Baptist Church in Algiers has been buzzing with bright-yellow-shirted volunteers, two dozen Red Cross trucks and a large makeshift kitchen from the Southern Baptist Convention. Warren Combs is helping lead the volunteers, many of whom are students from Christian colleges. Mr. WARREN COMBS: What you see right here, this is an eight-burner gas stove, and they're cooking the dressing for today. Our menu's going to be turkey, dressing, cranberry sauce, yams, pecan pie, gravy and iced brownies. Mr. WARREN COMBS: Group: (Singing) Turkey, turkey and some yam. Mr. WARREN COMBS: Unidentified Woman: (Singing) Don't forget to spray your pots and pans. CORNISH: Red insulated containers are filled to the brim with turkey dressing, cooked turkey meat and sweet potatoes. Each container holds 250 servings to be scooped and served through the truck windows by volunteers. CORNISH: One Red Cross truck makes its way through a barren-looking neighborhood in Orleans Parish, where the faded brown watermark rides near the top of the doorways on most homes. One or two people make their way towards the vehicle. CORNISH: Unidentified Man #1: Come on over! CORNISH: Iris Johnson is one of them. She's spending Thanksgiving morning salvaging shoes, clothes, family pictures, whatever's left in her house. Johnson says she's grateful to see the truck. Ms. IRIS JOHNSON: It looks just fine to me, the Thanksgiving dinner, 'cause can't find no stores open or anything. Buying is not the problem; just somewhere to go purchase it. CORNISH: Across the way a group of men come down off the roof of a badly damaged house on the corner, and they sit down to eat for the only sure meal of the day. Nathaniel James'(ph) work crew consists of his son and three other friends. The dinner's pretty good, they say, but if they had their homes again, it would be different. CORNISH: Unidentified Man #2: Well, usually my wife have macaroni and cheese, stuffed bellpeppers, baked ham... CORNISH: Unidentified Man #3: Gumbo. CORNISH: Unidentified Man #4: Gumbo. CORNISH: Unidentified Man #2: ...gumbo, melatone(ph). CORNISH: Unidentified Man #5: Mm-hmm. CORNISH: Their girlfriends, wives and children are scattered across Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi. CORNISH: Unidentified Man #2: All your grandchildren--I miss my grandchildren. Yeah, I could play with them after I eat. I could play with them till I fall asleep, you know. CORNISH: Bertrand Bernard says it's hard to be away from family but that it's important for him to be back in Louisiana. Mr. BERTRAND BERNARD: Somebody has to be down here to try to keep things going, you know, 'cause FEMA can't do it all, you know? Red Cross can't do it all. So we got to do something ourselves. CORNISH: So for now this is Thanksgiving. Nathaniel says they're grateful for their lives and thankful that they have their families. After polishing off the last of the pecan pie, the men gather the plastic plates and paper boxes from their dinner and start back up the roof. Audie Cornish, NPR News, New Orleans.

New Orleans marks its first Thanksgiving after Hurricane Katrina. Charities are cooking 10,000 turkey dinners for residents still trying to put their lives back to together.

In New Orleans findet das erste Thanksgiving nach dem Hurrikan Katrina statt. Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen bereiten 10.000 Truthahnessen für die Bewohner zu, die immer noch versuchen, ihr Leben wieder in Ordnung zu bringen.

新奥尔良迎来了卡特里娜飓风过后第一个感恩节。慈善机构正在为仍在努力恢复正常生活的居民准备1万份火鸡晚餐。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: And I'm David Greene in Philadelphia. Last night, one half of the Democratic ticket said, yes, I'll take it. TIM KAINE: I humbly accept my party's nomination to be vice president of the United States. DAVID GREENE, HOST: That's the voice of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate. She will give her acceptance speech as the convention wraps up this evening. And one person listening will be Stacy Davis Gates. She is from Chicago, former teacher, now works for a teacher's union. She came here as a delegate for Bernie Sanders. Standing just off the floor last night, she told us there's been a little too much pageantry here for her taste. STACY DAVIS GATES: I'm from Chicago. This past weekend, there were nearly 60 people shot in the city of Chicago. I'm looking to hear our Democrats talk about a greater society, a bigger, newer deal. Our communities are in pain right now. DAVID GREENE, HOST: What are a few solutions that you want to hear more specifically about? STACY DAVIS GATES: A job that pays a fair wage with benefits, something that people can retire with dignity. DAVID GREENE, HOST: How has President Obama's record been in what we're talking about? STACY DAVIS GATES: I think President Obama has been good for us. I mean, having Michelle, the president and the first daughters in the White House have given us a tremendous amount of hope. It's time for us to take it up another notch. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And do you see Hillary Clinton as someone who can do that and deliver? STACY DAVIS GATES: I'm hoping. Hillary Clinton is still campaigning for out vote. DAVID GREENE, HOST: You're not ready to support her. STACY DAVIS GATES: Hillary Clinton is our nominee. I think this is historical. And I'm just ready to hear about this greater society that we're going to have. We need to enfranchise the people and invest in the people who have had the Democrats' back since day one, and that's black people. We've seen in a tremendous showcase of black women, we are heading our households. Our children's attend public schools that are grossly underserved. Black women also need a fair job, sick time. We need those things in order to sustain our households and our communities. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Can I ask you - you're talking about the pageantry here. The Republicans and Donald Trump have jumped on that and said that ISIS and threats around the world have not come up at this convention. STACY DAVIS GATES: I mean, Donald - it's Donald Trump. It's a shame that he is a legitimate contender. DAVID GREENE, HOST: But should national security and that idea of - regardless of what Trump has said - I mean, should that be... STACY DAVIS GATES: She's the secretary of - she's a former secretary of state. I think it goes without saying that she can address those issues. It's just foolish to say that out loud. We're not fear-mongering here. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And let me just ask you - the Trump campaign really seemed to draw a lot of attention today by bringing up Russia. And Donald Trump basically said, Russians, why don't you hack in and see if you can figure out what was in the emails that were in Hillary Clinton's server. STACY DAVIS GATES: Donald Trump is a dangerous man who needs to go away. DAVID GREENE, HOST: But did the email server make Hillary Clinton vulnerable to that sort of... STACY DAVIS GATES: Donald Trump is a dangerous man who needs to go away. DAVID GREENE, HOST: I feel like your answer's not going to change. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Donald Trump is a dangerous man who needs to go away. DAVID GREENE, HOST: The voice there of Stacy Davis Gates, who, as you can probably tell, will not be voting for Donald Trump. As for Hillary Clinton, she said she is ready to be won over fully. Our colleague Mara Liasson says the campaign last night was busy winning over skeptics. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Last night, the Democrats tried to reach beyond the hall and beyond their base. The former Republican mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, was their emissary. Bloomberg is a billionaire and now an independent. He spoke directly to voters uneasy about Clinton but also worried about Trump. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I am asking you to join with me, not out of party loyalty but out of love of country. And together let's elect a sane, competent person with international experience, a unifier who is mature enough to reach out for advice, to build consensus and to recognize that we all have something to contribute. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Last night was Tim Kaine's debut. The Democrat's vice presidential candidate confronted Hillary Clinton's biggest problem - majorities of Americans think she is not honest or trustworthy. Kaine said the mothers of children killed by police trust Hillary; so does a little girl worried that her parents will be deported. TIM KAINE: And on a personal level, as he's serving our nation abroad, I trust Hillary Clinton with our son's life. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: President Obama went last. It was 12 years to the day after his maiden speech at the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004. He framed the election to succeed him as a battle of values. He said the election is not a choice between ideology or party. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a more fundamental choice about who we are as a people and whether we stay true to this great American experiment in self-government. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: The president also made a pitch to any Republicans uncomfortable with the direction Trump is taking the GOP. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But what we heard in Cleveland last week wasn't particularly Republican, and it sure wasn't conservative. What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems, just the fanning of resentment and blame and anger and hate. And that is not the America I know. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Mr. Obama described the America he knew as a country unified by shared values, not blood or soil. And he delivered an eviscerating takedown of Donald Trump. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: That's why we can attract strivers and entrepreneurs from around the globe to build new factories and create new industries here. That's why our military can look the way it does, every shade of humanity forged into common service. That's why anyone who threatens our values, whether fascists or Communists or jihadists or homegrown demagogues, will always fail in the end. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hillary Clinton has had a lot of powerful validators this week - first lady Michelle Obama, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden - but none as effective as President Obama. He said she was more qualified to be president than he or Bill Clinton had been. He said as commander in chief she would destroy ISIS without resorting to torture or banning entire religions from entering the country. And he tried to give voters with doubts about Clinton what speechwriters call a permission structure to vote for her. He said she'd been under the microscope for 40 years. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: She knows that sometimes there in those 40 years she's made mistakes, just like I have, just like we all do. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: That's what happens when we try. That's what happens when you're the kind of citizen Teddy Roosevelt once described, not the timid souls who criticize from the sidelines but someone who is actually in the arena. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: This was Barack Obama's valedictory speech. In his remaining months in office, he will never have as big an audience, and electing Hillary Clinton is the only way for Obama to protect his legacy and his policies. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And now I'm ready to pass the baton and do my part as a private citizen. So this year in this election, I'm asking you to join me to reject cynicism and reject fear and to summon what is best in us to elect Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States and show the world we still believe in the promise of this great nation. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Then, from the wings, out walked Hillary Clinton. They hugged and waved to the crowd. Tonight is Hillary Clinton's night. Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and Barack Obama have built her a solid foundation. Now, it's her turn to convince a skeptical country that she is the best choice in November. DAVID GREENE, HOST: That was the voice of NPR's Mara Liasson, who's here in Philadelphia. I'm joined now by two colleagues. NPR national political correspondent Don Gonyea has been in the studio with us at member station WHYY all week, and Mary Louise Kelly, who covers national security, is on the line from Washington. Good morning to you both. DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Good morning. MARY LOUISE KELLY, BYLINE: Good morning, David. DAVID GREENE, HOST: One comment from the president there, that anyone who attacks American values will fail. I mean, this is a big question confronting voters in this election. Is it not? I mean, because Donald Trump is basically arguing that the country has not been safe under President Obama and that he would be the one to make it safe. MARY LOUISE KELLY, BYLINE: That is absolutely a key question that's run through the campaign and will continue to right up to November. The Republican argument runs that the world today is a violent, unsteady, terrifying place and that Obama and Clinton have been running it, and therefore that, if you want change, this is not the team to vote for. That is an argument that resonates, as you know, David, with a lot of voters. MARY LOUISE KELLY, BYLINE: We have heard Democrats push back hard against that all this week saying, look, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, they didn't create Russia. They didn't create China. They didn't create ISIS. They didn't create terrorism. But Hillary Clinton is the most experienced hand to respond to it. We heard Leon Panetta, the former defense secretary, former CIA director, make that point explicitly last night. And I expect that we will hear something along those same lines from Hillary Clinton tonight. DAVID GREENE, HOST: But, Don Gonyea, you're out there talking to voters. How much is it resonating, the argument that Obama has made the country less safe? DON GONYEA, BYLINE: It is absolutely a theme that runs through not just Donald Trump rallies when you go there but when you talk to voters, when you pop into a diner, when you sit down at a picnic table in a park. They do hear things like what we heard Vice President Biden say last night. Nobody ever won by betting against the United States. DON GONYEA, BYLINE: They get that. They get that long term. But then they go why is Orlando happening? Why is San Bernadino happening? Why is it happening in a, you know, just kind of in these random places around the country? So the anxiety and the stress that that creates is very real. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And I guess questions about President Obama's policies in Syria, in Iraq, Afghanistan - I mean, he would make the argument that he was able to kill Osama bin Laden. I mean, there's an actual record that voters can pick apart as this election goes on. We'll be talking much more about this. I'm with my colleague Don Gonyea here in Philadelphia and my colleague Mary Louise Kelly from Washington. Thank you both. MARY LOUISE KELLY, BYLINE: You're welcome. DON GONYEA, BYLINE: Thank you.

Thursday night at the Democratic convention will be Hillary Clinton's night, but Wednesday night was President Obama's. He framed the election as a battle of values — a contrast to the GOP message.

Donnerstagabend auf dem Parteitag der Demokraten wird Hillary Clintons Abend sein, aber Mittwochabend war der Abend von Präsident Obama. Er bezeichnete die Wahl als Wertekampf – ein Kontrast zur Botschaft der GOP.

周四晚上的民主党大会将是希拉里·克林顿之夜，但周三晚上是奥巴马总统之夜。他认为此次选举是一场价值观的斗争，与共和党的主张形成了鲜明对比。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: A controversial logo will be removed from the uniforms of the Cleveland Indians' baseball team for the 2019 season. But the caricature of a red-faced Native American called Chief Wahoo will continue to appear on merchandise. In 2018, Native American names and imagery still abound in the United States on products and sports franchises and weaponry. Paul Chaat Smith would like us to take notice. He co-curated a new exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. It showcases hundreds of objects with Native American imagery. And it's called "Americans." Paul Chaat Smith joins us in our studios. Thanks so much for being with us. PAUL CHAAT SMITH: Glad to be here. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Now, as is known, my father was the field announcer for the Cleveland Indians. And I don't mind saying I'm glad to see the end of Chief Wahoo. I can't even - won't even bring myself to say the name of Washington, D.C.'s football team on the air. But do you believe it's possible that some team names or images - Braves, Seahawks, Blackhawks - can be genuine tributes to Native Americans? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: I do think it's possible. And I do think the intent of Chief Wahoo was to add value to the team, to give it an identity. And it was created at a time in which those sorts of caricatures were acceptable. Clearly, any cartoonish character like that of any ethnic group would be unacceptable now. But, you know, the intent was there. And I think it's interesting to look at why it makes sense for so many different products, teams, weapon systems, things in your pantry to connect with American Indians. We're so used to it here in the United States. But when you step back, it's really a freaking weird phenomenon. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Well, let me ask you about weaponry. I guess I hadn't realized it until we were reviewing this material. Tomahawk missiles, Apache helicopters - can they be seen as tributes to the staunch warrior qualities of Native Americans? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: It really does stem from that. And there's really a connection between weaponry and sports teams - you know, the idea of a fierce warrior. One of the things visitors will learn through our exhibition is that by fiat the Pentagon names all helicopters after an Indian tribe or individual. And now they consult with Native Americans. So the White Mountain Apache are thrilled that the Apache helicopter has that name. There are differences of opinion within the Native community on this and many other issues. But the idea is interesting since, of course, the Apache were enemies of the United States for a long time. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Yeah. And a lot of Apaches were killed by U.S. military weaponry, weren't they? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: Yeah. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The Land O' Lakes butter box - there's a Native American on that. And an informal poll of people taken around here suggests a lot of people don't even see her. PAUL CHAAT SMITH: Well, she's in your refrigerator. And God knows what she's doing at night. I never look closely at it myself. I do buy that brand. And when you look at it closely, what you see is she's kneeling. And she's holding the box that she's in. And so it recedes into infinity. In other words, you know, in that box, you see her again and again and again. So it's this amazing combination of American identity, a generic Indian with really brilliant graphic design that, you know, you don't really notice. But I really do think she's up to something at night in the refrigerator. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: (Laughter) I'll check. Is it offensive? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: I think some of it is. Some of it isn't. You know, one reason I'm so happy they're retiring Chief Wahoo is because even though I'm a National League fan, the Indians have been my favorite AL team the last several years. They're an incredibly exciting team. So when I'm watching as a fan, I would really love to appreciate the players and not have this offensive logo out there. So I think it's really good for them. What we're hoping is that rather than getting too prescriptive about this is offensive - this needs to change - in this case, it's OK - look at this larger phenomenon that's really tied to American national identity, that's in all of our lives from our earliest memories as Americans. It's really the most enduring brand in the history of American advertising. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I gather the exhibit is going to be up for five years, right? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: Correct. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What do you hope - somebody who goes through there - how they might be touched or changed? PAUL CHAAT SMITH: The museum's challenge has always been that most Americans don't live in areas where there are lots of Indians. So they come in with nothing to do with Indians. They never met an Indian. And they're learning as cultural tourists. I think when they visit our show, they'll see that, actually, they have all these connections to Indians, whether it's a video from "South Park" or it's John Ford's masterpiece "Stagecoach" or it's Land O'Lakes butter maiden. There are all these things that connect you to it. They're not real Indians, obviously. But I think all of that is going to start looking a little bit different. And it's the beginning of a different kind of conversation. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Paul Chaat Smith - he's co-curator of the new exhibition "Americans." That's at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. Thanks so much. PAUL CHAAT SMITH: Thank you, Scott.

The Cleveland Indians say they'll stop using the Chief Wahoo logo on their uniforms in 2019. NPR's Scott Simon talks with Paul Chaat Smith of the National Museum of the American Indian.

The Cleveland Indians sagen, dass sie 2019 das Chief Wahoo-Logo auf ihren Uniformen nicht mehr verwenden werden. Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit Paul Chaat Smith vom National Museum of the American Indian.

克利夫兰印第安人队表示，他们将在2019年停止在队服上使用瓦荷酋长的标志。NPR的斯科特·西蒙与美国印第安国家博物馆的保罗·查特·史密斯就此进行了交流。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: When you have a colleague who's diagnosed with breast cancer, it's a hard time for the patient but can also be a hard time for you. You worry about your colleague of course and you might also start to think about your own health - your own mortality. NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam joins us regularly on this program and is here now to tell us about a study that examines how a cancer diagnosis might affect other people in the office. Hi, Shankar. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Hi, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So what's the effect? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Well, the study was looking at breast cancer in particular, Steve. Obviously a very serious disease - nearly a quarter-million Americans diagnosed every year with breast cancer, nearly 40,000 women die each year from breast cancer. This study was trying to find out when one person in a workplace gets diagnosed with breast cancer, does it become more or less likely that her colleagues will be motivated now to screen for breast cancer? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: The study comes from a couple of economists - Giulio Zanella and Ritesh Banerjee. They came by this unusual data set that involved 7,000 U.S. women all 50 and over. The data spanned three years - and let me just take a second to explain some interesting things about this data set - all of these women worked at one company. The data about the individual women was anonymous, but there was information on where each woman worked physically, what kind of healthcare she utilized, what kind of diagnosis she received. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Now, all of these women were covered by health insurance. It was a very good insurance plan. And the plan allowed for one free mammogram screening every year. And this company made a real push to help women get screened for breast cancer. So it would try and automatically schedule mammograms. It would try and remind women about the mammograms. The wait times to get screened were very small. So the barriers typically for women not to get screened didn't exist at this company. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So the question then is, do the coworkers then take that information to decide to check up on their own health? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: That's right, Steve. And the answer is not as obvious as you might think. Here's Ritesh Banerjee. RITESH BANERJEE: When I was thinking about this, I thought, yeah, wouldn't one expect people to screen more because maybe you're scared or maybe you're (unintelligible). But I think psychologists and social scientists talk about this idea of information aversion - the idea that maybe you don't want to find out about some really bad news because of the way it makes you feel. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, so this might cut both ways. Information aversion is something you've reported on on this program. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: That's right. It's the idea that information can sometimes be scary. And in those cases, people can sometimes avoid that kind of information. I did a story a couple of weeks ago that looked at college students who didn't want to find out that they had sexually transmitted diseases for example. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: In fact, they were willing to pay not to find out the results of a blood test they'd already taken which is pretty amazing. So now we have this situation with people in an office who've actually found out that a colleague has breast cancer. What is the result on their health decisions? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Well, Banerjee and Zanella find something similar, which is that when a woman is given a breast cancer diagnosis, her female coworkers become less likely subsequently to get screened for breast cancer. Here he is again. RITESH BANERJEE: We find that on average when a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, her co-workers - her immediate female coworkers - reduce their propensity to have a breast screening in the year in which the diagnosis takes place. And this impact is persistent for at least two more years after the diagnosis for that woman. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. So someone sitting there and saying there's a person over here who's got breast cancer and this is awful. And now I don't want to know about my own health situation. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: That's right. And there were a couple of things in the data, Steve, that made me think that Zanella and Banerjee are really on to something because the data not only showed which women were diagnosed, but how serious their cancer was. So oncologists would say the stage and the grade of the cancer. And what the economists find is that the co-workers of the women with the most serious cancers are the most likely not to get screened, presumably because these coworkers are especially scared by what's happened to their colleague. Second, the data showed where the women worked physically at the company literally - where they sat and how far they were from one another. And what the economists find is that co-workers who are physically closer to the patient also become less likely to screen. And both of those things I think point to the idea that when you find out that a colleague has been affected, you're scared and you don't want to find out that you yourself might be affected. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The more you know, the less you want to know. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Exactly. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Shankar, thanks very much. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Thanks, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam. You can follow him on Twitter @HiddenBrain and follow us @nprgreen and @NPRinskeep. You can also follow this program on Twitter - it's @MorningEdition or just visit the MORNING EDITION Facebook page if you prefer. And there's much more ahead this morning on the radio and all day at your public radio station.

When a woman at work experiences breast cancer, does that make her colleagues more likely to get mammograms and be proactive about their own health?

Wenn eine Frau bei der Arbeit an Brustkrebs erkrankt, erhöht dies die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ihre Kollegen Mammographien machen und sich aktiv um ihre eigene Gesundheit kümmern?

当一位工作中的女性经历了乳腺癌，是否会使她的同事更有可能接受乳房X光检查并积极关注自己的健康？

ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick. ALEX CHADWICK, host: It's a slow afternoon in a casino on the Vegas Strip. I'm watching the careful, controlled expression on the face of a 30-year-old man whose next destination is Iraq. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): I think if there's ever a moment to be hedonistic in life, it's when you're going to war. You can't put out of your mind the thought that you might not come back. And when you do come back, you're going to come back a little bit changed. No matter how tough you are, you're going to be different when you come back. ALEX CHADWICK, host: That's Phillip Carter, a captain in the Army Reserve, now activated and assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, which is deploying to the war zone. He's also Phillip Carter, attorney at law and Phillip Carter, military and legal affairs writer for Slate and other publications. He's here in Las Vegas just before shipping out. He'll soon be part of a small detachment helping to train police in Iraq, these days, some of the most dangerous duty there is. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): I joined the Army in college on an ROTC scholarship to pay for school and then spent four years on active duty as a military police officer between college and law school. ALEX CHADWICK, host: For part of DAY TO DAY's series of conversations on Iraq, we invited ourselves to join Phillip at the start of his farewell weekend, which he chose to spend in this city devoted to losing time. In his hotel room, Phillip Carter talked about the military and Iraq and why he decided to volunteer for combat duty. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): I made a decision in May or June that I should volunteer to be mobilized as a Reservist from the inactive reserves. My branch manager told me I was likely to go in the next year or so, but he couldn't give me any predictions as to where or with what unit. So I chose to go with a very good unit that had gone before because I decided that if I was going to go, I wanted to go with the best. ALEX CHADWICK, host: This is the 101st Airborne Division that you're going with. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): Correct. ALEX CHADWICK, host: That's a serious combat unit. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): It is, but it's also a unit that has shown themselves to be thinking warriors. When they occupied Mosul last year, they did a very good job of working with the civilian population and the local government agencies up there to pacify the area and make it as liveable as any place in Iraq. ALEX CHADWICK, host: When you think about going to Iraq now, how does it seem to you? Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): There's a mix of excitement, anxiety and probably a little bit of fear of the unknown. It's really in a lot of ways a big test for me. I've trained with the Army for almost 10 years now. I've done a lot of things in the Army, but I've yet to see combat, and in a lot of ways, this is an opportunity to prove myself and also for my unit to prove itself. ALEX CHADWICK, host: But it's also--well, it's dangerous. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): It is, and you try to mitigate that by training as much as possible, but the risk of what could happen is always in the back of your mind, and it has to be because that's what keeps you on edge and keeps you focused on staying alive. ALEX CHADWICK, host: In the last month, we've seen polling reports that look as though Americans are less committed than they were to Iraq. People say we should pay for the Gulf Coast problems by not spending money in Iraq. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): I think that is a false choice in some respects. Both missions have a lot of import. You know, the US government, above all else, stands for the protection of its citizens, and we should do as much as possible to help the people in the Gulf Coast. But at the same time, we have to succeed in Iraq. We have to win there. A defeat there would mean a lot of bad things for the country down the road. And so I don't think you can simply say we shouldn't spend money in Iraq or we shouldn't spend lives in Iraq and we should do that all on the Gulf Coast. I think we really have to do both, but the trick is to find the balance. What I've told my guys is that we have a lane of our own, which is to train and advise Iraqi police. And if we can do a good job in our lane and achieve small victories along the way, then we can contribute to the effort. And if it all adds up to a total victory at the end of the day is really something more for political leaders and historians to debate down the road. But at our level, we're just focused on little victories. ALEX CHADWICK, host: All right. Well, here you are, on your way to Iraq. You're a captain in the Army Reserve, called up to active duty. You're an attorney working in Los Angeles. You're at least a semi-journalist, writing regularly for Slate magazine. How do you think of yourself going over there? Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): That's a good question. My dad usually compares me to Ernest Hemingway, but I think that's entirely too overwrought, and I don't drink nearly enough for that. But I tend to see myself and some of my friends sort of as scholar soldiers, you know, the kinds of people that maybe once were part of the Greek or Roman army that spent a good part of their life studying the world and war and then, when their nation needed them, they went. I don't know how much writing I'll be able to do from over there, but I think that the training I've gotten as a writer and as a lawyer will certainly help me as an Army officer. ALEX CHADWICK, host: The place where you're from, the West Side of Los Angeles, has a reputation for being very liberal. What do people say when you say, `I'm in the Army and I'm on my way to Iraq'? Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): You know, it's amazing. Almost everyone has been really supportive, especially including my friends that are very opposed to the war. I think because the military is something that they don't have a lot of personal experience with or personal connection to, they really admire those people that do have that. And they have offered to send me care packages. They've offered to baby-sit my dog. They've offered to check on my apartment. And it's just been overwhelming to me to get all this support. And at the same time, they've also chided me about the war effort itself. It's a weird sort of duplicity where they really support me going over there, but then lament the fact that their friend has to go over there for an effort they don't really agree with. But I think it's going to be very interesting when I come back to have a lot of dinner-table conversations with these people and talk to them about the actual mechanics of what's going on over there. And maybe I can, you know, teach them a little bit about it, or they can teach me about why they're opposed and so in a year or so, we can come to some conclusions about how we might think about this. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Your last weekend before you go, where are you? Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): Las Vegas. I do--I wanted to have fun, and I wanted to really indulge myself in some of the best food and wine and a little gambling and go see a show and do all those things that I wouldn't get to do for a year. ALEX CHADWICK, host: Phillip Carter, good luck this weekend. Good luck this next year. Captain PHILLIP CARTER (Army Reserve): Thanks, Alex. ALEX CHADWICK, host: This has been another in the series of DAY TO DAY conversations on the war in Iraq. NPR's DAY TO DAY continues. I'm Alex Chadwick.

Attorney, Slate military affairs writer and Army Capt. Phillip Carter has volunteered for a tour of duty in Iraq. Alex Chadwick speaks to Carter from Las Vegas, where he's spending his last few days in America before joining the 101st Airborne Division.

Der Rechtsanwalt, Militärjournalist und Hauptmann der Armee Phillip Carter hat sich freiwillig für einen Einsatz im Irak gemeldet. Alex Chadwick spricht mit Carter aus Las Vegas, wo er seine letzten Tage in Amerika verbringt, bevor er sich der 101. Airborne Division anschließt.

律师，石板军事事务作家和陆军上尉。菲利普·卡特自愿去伊拉克服役。亚历克斯·查德威克在拉斯维加斯对卡特说，在加入101空降师之前，卡特在美国度过了最后几天。