Datasets:

Krystalan

/

xmediasum

like 1

ALEX COHEN, host: From NPR News, it's Day to Day. Bonuses paid out to Wall Street employees fell by nearly 50 percent last year. You may or may not have sympathy for bankers who weren't able to rake in a few extra million dollars. But consider this. Smaller bonuses mean less income tax for the state of New York. For more on this, we're joined now by Brett Philbin. He's a reporter with the Dow Jones News Wires. And Brett, when we say bonuses are down nearly 50 percent, how much money are we talking about? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): So it will cost the state one billion in personal income tax revenue. And for New York City, it's 275 million in tax revenue. ALEX COHEN, host: I would imagine a lot of this is concentrated in New York City. Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): That's right. It looks like, I guess about a fifth of its New York City. Unfortunately, we're not sure yet where the money will go until the budget presentation, which is the 31st, but it's definitely a steep decline for the city. ALEX COHEN, host: So what kind of cuts might they need to make with this much less coming in? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): You know, I'm not sure exactly where the cuts will take place. I know they've got several issues in mind. I think it's definitely a reflection upon the times right now, and how difficult the environment is for financial service firms. ALEX COHEN, host: You wrote in your piece today that the bonus pool is still the sixth largest on record. How much money was it overall? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): Overall, it was 18.4 billion, but it was down from about 33 billion last year. So it's a decline, but it's still, like you said, the sixth largest, so there's been thoughts that the past compensations have gotten a little excessive. So there's definitely an argument that that was the case. ALEX COHEN, host: And all of this in the wake of a bonus scandal at Merrill Lynch. What's been going on there? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): So John Thain resigned. He was the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch. And basically, before he left, he allocated the pay outs of bonuses to be set for the end of the year before the deal closed, when Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch. And there was dispute upon who decided what. Basically, Bank of America said the decision was made by Merrill Lynch's Compensation Committee. Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): They had no right to challenge it, and then John Thain said that he had made the decision with Bank of America. So I guess the issue was kind of who was deciding what. And basically, he wanted to make the payments set before he left just because the firm would be integrated after January first. ALEX COHEN, host: Going back to the drop in bonuses for a moment, were there fewer bonuses because people were getting laid off? Were people given smaller bonuses? What does the breakdown look like? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): Well, it's really a combination of factors. I mean, because the firms had so many credit losses and writedowns. It just had less money to pay out. I mean, certain areas like investment banking, the revenues decline significantly. There's just less money there to allocate. And the bonus pool itself was down actually 44 percent, but the average person's bonus was down 36 percent. Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): So, because less employees, the bonus for each person wasn't as much of the pool. So it was down, but it could have been worse. The layoffs, in a sense, helped a little bit. ALEX COHEN, host: In addition to state and city coffers, what about local businesses, especially the high end ones? Isn't that where most of these Wall Street executives would spend a good chunk of their bonuses? Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): Yeah, there's definitely been, you know, reported all over the place that there's less business, that some of the major restaurants and other shops and areas around New York City. So it's definitely taking a hit in all kinds of areas. You know, real estate's one big part of that, too. You know, a lot of these executives and Wall Street employees, you know, buy expensive condos, and it takes a hit there too, as well. ALEX COHEN, host: Brett Philbin is a reporter with the Dow Jones News Wires. Thank you so much, Brett. Mr. BRETT PHILBIN (Reporter, Dow Jones News Wires): Thank you very much.

Bonuses paid out to Wall Street employees fell by almost half in 2008. That deeply slashed tax revenue for the state of New York. Host Alex Cohen talks to Dow Jones reporter Brett Philbin about what the loss means for the state.

Die Boni, die an die Mitarbeiter der Wall Street ausgezahlt wurden, gingen 2008 um fast die Hälfte zurück. Das hat die Steuereinnahmen für den Staat New York stark gekürzt. Moderator Alex Cohen spricht mit dem Dow-Jones-Reporter Brett Philbin darüber, was der Verlust für den Staat bedeutet.

2008 年，支付给华尔街员工的奖金几乎减少了一半。这大大削减了纽约州的税收。主持人亚历克斯·科恩与道琼斯记者布雷特·菲尔宾谈论了该损失对该州的影响。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: A trial underway in Paris illustrates the pain of privatization for many employees of a formerly state-run telecom company. Prosecutors have charged executives from the company with what's called moral harassment when a hostile work environment reportedly led to suicides. Jake Cigainero has details from Paris. JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: One morning in 2011, Remy Louvradoux went to his management job at the telecommunications company where he had worked for 30 years. At 7 a.m., alone in the parking lot of his office near Bordeaux, he took his life. His son Raphael told the news site L'Obs why. RAPHAEL LOUVRADOUX: (Through interpreter) My father wrote his bosses a letter two years before he killed himself. He told them suicide was the only way out of a stressful work environment. No one responded. JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: Louvradoux was one of 19 employees who killed themselves between 2008 and 2011 at France Telecom, the company now called Orange. Twelve other workers attempted suicide. France Telecom had been part of the French government's Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs. But under a privatization process, the state sold off most of its shares. To be competitive and pay off debt, former CEO Didier Lombard wanted to cut 20% of the staff, about 22,000 employees. But many workers retained the protections they had enjoyed as civil servants. PHILIPPE ASKENAZY: Yeah. So actually, when you are a servant - the status of civil servant - it's absolutely impossible to fire you when you are in a permanent contract. JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: That's Philippe Askenazy, a labor economist at the National Center for Scientific Research in France. He says France Telecom's transition to private ownership was particularly brutal. AKENAZY: For them, workers are just a wage and a cost rather than a real resource for their firm. They develop practices to push workers to resign. JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: Prosecutors say managers and engineers were demoted to call center jobs. Employees complained they were micromanaged, isolated and assigned to jobs without training. Families were moved multiple times around the country. AKENAZY: One of the suicides, for example, is linked to a woman who was relocated across France three times in the same year just because she didn't want to resign. JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: CEO Lombard reportedly told fellow executives that one way or the other he would make workers leave - through the door or through the window. His lawyer seemed to acknowledge the statement, saying his client had misspoken. When Lombard was quoted calling the suicides a "fad," the executive explained the comment as a gaffe. Now, he, six other executives and the company Orange itself are on trial. It's the first time a major firm in France has faced charges of moral harassment. Prosecutors say managers created a hostile work environment to get employees to quit. Lombard's lawyer says his client is not responsible for harassing employees he didn't know, employees like technician Robert Perrin. His brother Jean told BFM TV that constant demeaning remarks from his bosses pushed his brother to take his own life. JEAN PERRIN: (Speaking French). JAKE CIGAINERO, BYLINE: Jean Perrin wants Lombard to apologize. And he says he's asking on behalf of all the families who lost loved ones. The defendants may have to do more than apologize. They face up to a year in prison and fines of 15,000 euros. The trial will continue for two months. For NPR News, I'm Jake Cigainero in Paris.

Prosecutors have charged executives at the biggest telecom company in France with "moral harassment." Labor advocates say the work environment was so hostile, it was the reason for worker suicides.

Die Staatsanwälte haben Führungskräfte des größten Telekommunikationsunternehmens Frankreichs wegen \"Moralische Belästigung\" angeklagt. Gewerkschaftsvertreter sagen, dass das Arbeitsumfeld so schlimm gewesen sei. Es sei der Grund für die Selbstmorde von Arbeitern gewesen.

检察官指控法国电信巨头的高管犯“道德骚扰”罪。劳工领袖表示，工作环境如此恶劣，这是工人自杀的原因。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Democrats still have a lot of questions about Robert Mueller's investigation. They'll get a chance to ask some of them soon when Attorney General William Barr testifies in a couple of weeks. Big question House Democrats now face is how aggressively to pursue their investigations now that the report is out and no one from the Trump campaign was charged over conspiring with Russia. NPR's congressional correspondent Sue Davis joins us. Sue, thanks so much for being with us. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Hey, Scott. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Let's hear what the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler - Democrat, obviously, from New York - said yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America." JERRY NADLER: Mueller, the special prosecutor, made very clear that he couldn't reach a determination on obstruction of justice, basically because of certain Justice Department guidelines which didn't allow him to do that - but that he laid it out for Congress. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Laid it out for Congress - does that mean that Congress is headed for impeachment hearings? SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: As you and I sit here today, this still seems rather unlikely. Following the release of the report, Democratic leaders like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that this country's going to have an election in 18 months and that he believes the fate of President Trump should be left to the voters. Remember, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has always been an impeachment skeptic. She has set a bar that would have to be, in her words, overwhelming and bipartisan, meaning you would need to get some Republicans on board to do it, namely Senate Republicans. And if anything, the response from Republicans on Capitol Hill to Robert Mueller's report was, case closed. Time to move on. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: At the same time, there were Democrats who, for some time, have been saying there's enough to proceed with impeachment and this week said, look; everyone says wait for the Mueller report. Well, I've read it. And even more now, I say impeachment. Is it dividing the party? SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: On some level, absolutely. You know, at the same time, you have people like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi saying one thing. You look to the progressive left or the activist left where you have freshmen lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York or Ilhan Omar of Minnesota who, in response to the report, signed on to a resolution calling for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House Judiciary Committee. That is a resolution offered by another female freshman lawmaker - Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Also, you have some of the leading 2020 contenders - Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called for the House to begin impeachment proceedings. It is certainly a reflection of where the party's base is, but it is not the presiding sentiment of the party. Lawmakers are out of town right now. We know House Democrats are going to have a conference call on Monday to begin hashing out their strategy here. Pelosi has told Democrats, in her words, Congress will not be silent. But in terms of the impeachment question, I think what you would have to see is a major shift in public opinion in order to prod Democrats in that direction 'cause of right now, their party leaders are saying, we're not going there. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: How do you explain the bipartisan agreement - Republicans and Democrats both calling for Robert Mueller to testify? SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: I think they agree they want him to appear. I think their reasons why for that agreement is very different. They have drawn very different conclusions about what this report says. Republicans see that as a political exoneration of the president, and they would like Robert Mueller to back that point up on television. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: For Democrats, they see a report that does not exonerate the president. If anything, it lays out in extraordinary detail a president who encouraged bad actors to meddle in an election, who tried to interfere in the special counsel's investigation but for his aides, in many cases, who declined to carry out his directives. And they see a conclusion in this report where Robert Mueller may have just left on their doorstep a pathway to move forward on impeachment or at least to lay out a case to the people as to why Donald Trump should not be re-elected president. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: NPR's Susan Davis. Thanks so much. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: You're welcome.

Democrats are pressing ahead with their own inquiry over the Mueller investigation, issuing a subpoena for the full report and underlying evidence. They're divided over pursuing impeachment.

Die Demokraten treiben ihre eigene Untersuchung der Mueller-Untersuchung voran und erlassen eine Vorladung für den vollständigen Bericht und die zugrunde liegenden Beweise. Sie sind sich uneins, ob sie ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren anstreben sollen.

民主党带着问题将穆勒调查往前推进，发出传票要求穆勒提供完整的报告和重要证据。民主党和穆勒在弹劾问题上存在分歧。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: In Syria, the northwestern province of Idlib hosts over a million refugees from other parts of the country. Now it is also the focus of a sustained military attack. After eight years of civil war, this is the last province held by opposition rebels in the country. Hundreds of civilians have died in the fighting and in air raids carried out by the Syrian regime and its allies recently. And now the government seems close to taking a key opposition town. DAVID GREENE, HOST: NPR's Ruth Sherlock joins us from Beirut. Hi there, Ruth. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Hi. Good morning. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So what town are we talking about, and why is it so crucial? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Well, so this is the town of Khan Sheikhoun, which has been controlled by rebels for most of the war. And it's really strategically located near this highway that links the major city of Aleppo with the capital, Damascus. That's a big reason why the government wants it back. But it's also symbolically a big coup if the regime takes it, good for boosting the morale of troops. You know, Khan Sheikhoun was the site of a chemical weapons attack in 2017. And it was that attack that prompted President Trump to attack - launch airstrikes in Syria. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, all this is happening in a province that, I mean, as I mentioned, doesn't just have civilians. It's also an area where people who have fled fighting in other parts of the country have come trying to find peace. So how is this all affecting the population right now? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Well, that's right. As you said, David, there's over a million refugees from other parts of the country as well as the domestic population in this area. And they are fleeing ever further north, but they're coming up against the Turkish border, which is closed. And there's not much elsewhere to go. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: And, you know, aid agencies are overwhelmed. So there are people taking up residence in schools. But a lot of these schools have also been destroyed in the fighting. So you have people literally living under olive trees in the kind of olive groves of this rural province. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And I know you're trying to talk to people there to get a real feel for what's happening. You spoke to a doctor in one of the hospitals. What did he tell you? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Yeah. So we're going to identify him as Dr. Ahmed (ph) because doctors have been targeted in the war, so he felt quite unsafe. He's in one of the main remaining hospitals in Idlib province. DR AHMED: All the medical centers and the hospitals in the south of Idlib and in north of Hama now are destroyed totally. We lost a lot of people because there is no medical service in this place. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: So a lot of the medical clinics near the frontlines, near the areas in the towns near where the fighting has been taking place, have been destroyed, have been damaged or destroyed by airstrikes. And he says, you know, as well as civilians who die because they don't have access to medical care, about 20 medical staff have been killed since the offensive began in April - a lot of those are his friends. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Then he had to cut the call suddenly because an ambulance pulled up at the hospital and he had to go. And a little while later, he sent me a photo of these two children - a young boy and a girl. He says they were the people in the ambulance, both had these terrible shrapnel wounds. And it looks like the boy is pretty close to death. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Oh, God. When is this going to end? Aren't there a lot of countries that are - that say, at least, they want peace in Syria? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Yeah. The Syrian regime is backed by Russia and Iran. Turkey is backed by the opposition rebels. Russia and Turkey have been trying to negotiate some kind of cease fire in this area. but so far, all those efforts have failed. DAVID GREENE, HOST: NPR's Ruth Sherlock reporting from Beirut. Thank you, Ruth. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Thank you, David.

Syrian government forces are advancing into a strategic town, forcing opposition fighters to leave. The province has been a refuge for many Syrian civilians, but now it's threatened.

Die syrischen Regierungstruppen rücken in eine strategisch wichtige Stadt vor und zwingen Oppositionskämpfer, diese zu verlassen. Die Provinz war ein Zufluchtsort für viele syrische Zivilisten, doch jetzt ist sie bedroht.

叙利亚政府军正在向一个战略重镇推进，迫使反对派战士离开。该省一直是许多叙利亚平民的避难所，但现在受到威胁。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Here are a few words you hope never to hear in the same sentence - nuclear reactor and exploded. Confirmation that a small reactor off the coast of northern Russia had indeed exploded came late this past Sunday. At least five people are confirmed dead. The explosion apparently happened during tests of a new nuclear-propelled missile, which is raising questions about that missile and about Russia's ambitions for its weapons arsenal. To try to answer them, let's bring in David Sanger of The New York Times. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Welcome back, David. DAVID SANGER: Great to be with you again, Mary Louise. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: How bad a nuclear accident was this? DAVID SANGER: Well, Mary Louise, it was at least bad enough to kill five people and perhaps more. Here's what we think happened. The Russians have been experimenting with a new cruise missile, which NATO codenames Skyfall. This missile is not only supposed to carry a nuclear weapon, it's supposed to be powered by a nuclear reactor. And that reactor is supposed to let it go anyplace in the world. The fuel would be fundamentally limitless. And this is a very difficult technology. The United States tried it in the '50s and '60s and gave up after one disaster after another. And now the Russians are learning some of the same thing. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has talked about this new class of weapons that Russia's been building. We've got tape of him talking about this last year. This is a - an interpreter delivering his version of a State of the Union speech. PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Through interpreter) We've developed the new strategic weapons that don't use ballistic trajectory at all, which means that missile defense will be useless against it. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Missile defense will be useless. If this is indeed the missile suspected of being involved in this nuclear accident, David Sanger, what might this incident tell us about Russia and its weapons ambitions? DAVID SANGER: Well, in the course of that State of the Union address that he gave in 2018, President Putin showed off a fairly ambitious-looking animation. And the animation was intended to show a few different kinds of weapons. One of them was an undersea weapon which people believe would be a - basically an undersea drone. DAVID SANGER: Two of the other weapons were in the air. One of them was supposed to move at five times the speed of sound. The other one was supposed to be the Skyfall cruise missile. And cruise missiles move in a zigzag pattern. They stay largely within the atmosphere, and they're very hard for missile defenses to counter because they don't follow a predictable path. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Also worth mentioning, such missiles aren't banned by the one major arms treaty still in place between the U.S. and Russia. DAVID SANGER: That's right. And the key phrase there that you use, Mary Louise, was the one major. Last month if we were having this conversation, there would have at least been two treaties. But one of them, the INF treaty - the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement - the United States left it on August 2, claiming accurately that the Russians were cheating on it. DAVID SANGER: All of the new weapons that Putin showed are not covered by existing treaties, and I think that he has been working hard to come up with technologies that wouldn't be covered by them and I think has no intention of signing any treaties that would be, unless the U.S. gave up missile defenses. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So big picture, does this suggest that this wasn't the scenario that Russia was hoping for with this particular test, but that they are working hard to try to develop a new class of weapons that will be harder for the U.S. to counter? DAVID SANGER: One way to look at it is this is just shakedown cruise stuff, and they had a tragic accident. The other way to look at it is that they're trying to develop a technology that others have tried and failed, and they'll have to give this up. But I think the big lesson is this, that we're in a new arms race, that it's not going to look like the old Cold War arms race. It's not about building sheer numbers. It's about having weapons that you can't defeat. It's about combining these weapons with cyber technology, with anti-satellite technology so that you have a range of weapons that the adversary cannot stop, and that that has become the new battleground, not sheer numbers. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: David Sanger, he is national security correspondent at The New York Times. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: David, thanks. DAVID SANGER: Thanks to you.

NPR's Mary Louise speaks with New York Times correspondent David Sanger about what the nuclear accident near a Russian missile test site reveals about the country's aspirations.

Mary Louise von NPR spricht mit David Sanger, Korrespondent der New York Times, darüber, was der nukleare Unfall in der Nähe eines russischen Raketentestgeländes über die Bestrebungen des Landes aussagt.

美国全国公共广播电台新闻的玛丽·路易斯与纽约时报记者大卫·桑格就俄罗斯导弹试验场附近的核事故进行了交谈，这次事故揭示了俄罗斯的抱负。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Madeleine Brand. The first recorded presidential inaugural address was back in 1925 with Calvin Coolidge's speech. That was also one of the first electric recordings. Somehow, the speech of Coolidge's successor, Herbert Hoover, was not recorded, but we have all the others since then. On the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration, we present the presidents of the United States of America. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Former President JOHN CALVIN COOLIDGE JR.: It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement, of pacifists or militarists. The physical configuration of the Earth has separated us from all of the Old World, but the common brotherhood of man, the highest law of our being, has united us by inseparable bonds with all humanity. Former President FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: Farmers find no markets for their produce, and the savings of many years and thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment. Former President FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: Former President HARRY S. TRUMAN: The United States and other likeminded nations find themselves directly opposed by a regime with contrary aims and a totally different concept of life. That regime adheres to a false philosophy, which purports to offer freedom, security and greater opportunity to mankind. Misled by that philosophy, many peoples have sacrificed their liberties only to learn to their sorrow that deceit and mockery, poverty and tyranny, are their reward. That false philosophy is communism. Former President DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER: We can turn rivers in their courses, level mountains to the plains. Ocean and land and sky are avenues for our colossal commerce. Disease diminishes and life lengthens. Yet, the promise of this life is imperiled by the very genius that has made it possible. Nations amass wealth; labor sweats to create and turn out devices to level not only mountains but also cities. Science seems ready to confer upon us, as its final gift, the power to erase human life from this planet. Former President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY: Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed and to which we are committed today, at home and around the world. Former President LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON: I do not believe that the Great Society is the ordered, changeless and sterile battalion of the ants. It is the excitement of becoming - always becoming - trying, probing, falling, resting and trying again, but always trying and always gaining. Former President RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON: In trusting too much in government, we have asked of it more than it can deliver. This leads only to inflated expectations, to reduced individual effort and to a disappointment and frustration that erode confidence both in what government can do and in what people can do. Government must learn to take less from people so that people can do more for themselves. Former President RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON: Former President GERALD RUDOLPH FORD JR.: My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here, the people rule. Former President RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON: Former President JAMES EARL CARTER JR.: Our commitment to human rights must be absolute, our laws, fair, our natural beauty, preserved. The powerful must not persecute the weak, and human dignity must be enhanced. Former President RONALD WILSON REAGAN: A settler pushes West and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air. It is the American sound. It is hopeful, bighearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair. That's our heritage; that's our song. We sing it still; for all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old. Former President GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH: America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today; it is to make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world. My friends, we have work to do. Former President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON: The scripture says, And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets, we have changed the guard, and now, each in our own way and with God's help, we must answer the call. Thank you, and God bless you all. Former President GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH: After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm? Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life. This work continues, this story goes on, and an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm. God bless you all, and God bless America. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Inaugural addresses from Calvin Coolidge to George W. Bush. Our piece was produced by Barrett Golding and comes to us from the NPR series Hearing Voices. And tomorrow, we'll hear one more inaugural address from Barack Obama. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And we'll have more just ahead on Day to Day.

The first sound recording of a presidential inauguration was made in 1925. Calvin Coolidge's swearing-in ceremony was one of the first electrical recordings, using microphones and amplifiers to record the sound. Hear excerpts from inaugural addresses of U.S. presidents since then.

Die erste Tonaufnahme einer Amtseinführung des Präsidenten wurde 1925 gemacht. Die Vereidigungszeremonie von Calvin Coolidge war eine der ersten elektrischen Aufnahmen, bei der Mikrofone und Verstärker zur Aufzeichnung des Tons verwendet wurden. Hören Sie sich Auszüge aus den Antrittsreden der US-Präsidenten seither an.

总统就职典礼的第一次录音是在1925年。卡尔文·柯立芝的宣誓仪式是最早的电子录音之一，当时使用麦克风和放大器来记录声音。现在请听从那时起就职演说的摘录。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. On Tuesday, jurors in a New York federal court found a former New York City police officer guilty of plotting to kidnap and cook his wife and other women. The defense argued that Gilberto Valle never acted on what were just fantasies - admittedly, very ugly fantasies but just thoughts, not deeds - and that we shouldn't prosecute people for their thoughts. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The government described the so-called cannibal cop as a sexual sadist whose plots against real women crossed the line and became a crime. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. Lawyers, we want to hear from you today. Is there a case, in your experience, that falls on one side or the other of that line between thoughts and crime? Give us a call, 800-989-8255; email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, dictionaries in the digital age. But first, the cannibal cop. Slate columnist Daniel Engber covered the trial, and joins us from our bureau in New York. Nice to have you with us today. DANIEL ENGBER: Thanks for having me. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the case centered on conversations that Valle had with two other men online; and some scenarios that even the prosecutors labeled as fantasy, but some where they said he crossed the line. What was the difference? DANIEL ENGBER: Well, it was actually three co-conspirators online. And when they went through his computer, they found - I think - 24 sets of conversations. As you say, 21 of them, they deemed fantasy. These are explicitly short story creation or chats in which, you know, at one point, one of the people in the chat said hey, is this for real? And Gil Valle said, no, this is a fantasy. No matter what I say, it's all make-believe. DANIEL ENGBER: But in those three - the three chats, or sets of chats that were at issue in the trial, he never said that. In fact, there were some moments in those chats where one of the participants would say, hey, are you for real? And Gil Valle would say, yes, he was. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the defense argued, well, saying something's for real is part of playing out the fantasy. But as I understand it - I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, at least one of the co-conspirators has to commit what's called an overt act to make something a crime. DANIEL ENGBER: Right. So the fact that he said it was for real, that's evidence - or the jury took that as evidence that this was a real conspiracy, something he really meant to do. Then the prosecution needed to show that he actually did something; there was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and that was the second part of the case against him. DANIEL ENGBER: He did a - he traveled to Maryland, to visit one of the alleged intended victims. He sent PBA cards, the police union cards, to a few different women that he'd talked about kidnapping. And he did a whole bunch of Google searches of various methods for abducting women. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So that was - yet that sounds a little ominous. But that meeting in Maryland - again, as I understand it - he took his wife and their small child with him. DANIEL ENGBER: Yes, it was a trip. So this target of his - you know, of his supposed plot was his college friend. He went to school at the University of Maryland, and he traveled down to Maryland with his wife and baby, and he hung out with his college friends. And among the friends he visited was this woman that he had, around that time, been talking about abducting; taking to a mountain hideaway that didn't really exist, but he talked about it online as if it did; and cooking her over Labor Day on a - roasting her on a spit, with a friend from England. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And were there any - was any equipment - without going into detail, was any equipment purchased? Was he preparing to do this, in any way? DANIEL ENGBER: No. Well, that's what's at issue here. Certainly, there was no real-world attempt to plan for this - what the defense referred to as a Labor Day cookout, and what the prosecution referred to - well, I don't know if they described it in any specific phrase, but what they would have us believe was a - sort of a killer's getaway. DANIEL ENGBER: There was - he never purchased any equipment for making a bonfire. He never - he had looked up recipes for chloroform online; that was a key part of the evidence against him. But he'd never actually acquired any of the chemicals for making chloroform, nor did he ever try to go ahead and purchase chloroform directly. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the defense throughout, argued this was a - I think the phrase they used was "thought prosecution." DANIEL ENGBER: Yeah. I mean, it really came down to - I mean, this kind of comes down to two questions: One, did he really mean to carry out these plots? Were they just fantasies? So that was the defense's first argument - this is just a fantasy. And then the second one, I guess even if it really was a plot, did he take any real-world actions? And it sort of comes down to what you think is a real-world action. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What do you think convinced the jury? DANIEL ENGBER: I think it was - you know, the discussions were just so disturbing, the fantasies. I mean, even in the 21 out of 24 that are established as fantasies, the fantasies are so upsetting, so violent and, you know, hateful that I - it just - it's hard to get past that, I think. And so if you find that so scary and think this is a dangerous, dangerous man, then everything that he did in real life takes on this really ominous, you know, color to it. And this trip to Maryland, which you could see as a visit of old college friends, could seem like a - sort of a recon mission for a murderous kidnapping plot. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What is the status of the - I guess still-alleged co-conspirators? DANIEL ENGBER: Well, one of his co-conspirators - a young man in New Jersey, named Michael Vanhise - was arrested around the same time as Gilberto Valle. He presumably will be on trial before too long. His co-conspirator in England was a male nurse named Dale Bolinger. He's been arrested within just the last few weeks, really. Police dug up his backyard, apparently searching for bones, for gnawed-on bones or something, but... NEAL CONAN, HOST: He had claimed to have eaten many women. DANIEL ENGBER: Yes. He presented himself in these chats as kind of a veteran cannibal. He - I mean, those are some of the silliest chats in the whole set. He comes off as kind of an ersatz Hannibal Lecter character. He's talking about his favorite recipes and, you know, a little bit of basil sprinkled on would be delicious, that sort of thing. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You're almost to fava beans and a nice Chianti. DANIEL ENGBER: Exactly. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah. All right, joining us here in Studio 3A is Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at the George Washington University, legal affairs editor at the New Republic. Good to have you back on the program, Jeffrey. JEFFREY ROSEN: Good to be here. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And does this case - is this thoughts, or is this a crime? JEFFREY ROSEN: Well, it seems right on the line, which is why it's such a fascinating case. It's very hard to know what to think about this. Daniel's reporting has been exemplary in showing the complexities of the case. And as you've been discussing, conspiracy requires that you have an intent to create - take a conspiracy, that you actually take active steps to join it, and then that you take some overt act in furtherance of it. JEFFREY ROSEN: And the difficulty is that the overt acts themselves, like Internet searches, are just as compatible with fantasy as with an attempt to carry out a real murder. And what makes it further complicated is the fact that there's these fetish sites - which are so disturbing, so viscerally hard to fathom - appear to be composed of fantasists. Most of the conversations introduced were concededly fantasy; and I don't think there were any examples given of people who participate in these sites, who actually do act out their fantasies. So that's what creates the disturbing - the concern that he might have been convicted for his thoughts. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there's sort of a - as I understand it; I've not visited the website - a disclaimer at the head of the website. It says, essentially, "all in good fun." It's obviously, very disturbing. JEFFREY ROSEN: The boldface message on the homepage says, "This place is about fantasies only. So play safe." And the defendant says, on his personal profile, "I love to push the envelope but no matter what I say, it's all fantasy." And in a lot of his chats, he kept repeating, it's fantasy. A few times, he said, "this time, I mean it." But of course, that's consistent with fantasy as well. NEAL CONAN, HOST: As well. And so therefore - again, you certainly don't want to get into the situation where you have to wait until somebody's actually abducted or killed. JEFFREY ROSEN: Of course not. And there are all sorts of conspiracies that you'd want to nip in the bud, prosecute in advance. A real murder, obviously, has to be stopped before it's carried out, and a real kidnapping. It's not really the case that the Internet has changed everything, and the fact that this takes place online means that what used to be fantasy is now criminal. It's just the case that the overt acts allegedly offered as furthering the conspiracy themselves could be considered thought crimes - Google searches and so forth. Many of us search for things that we think about, but don't intend to follow through on. JEFFREY ROSEN: Obviously, there's this broader question of whether it's possible to prosecute purely virtual conduct. And there was a big debate a few years ago, when somebody committed a virtual life - a virtual rape in a virtual reality site and, you know, should that be prosecuted as immoral because it's wrong? The Supreme Court has made pretty clear that you cannot prosecute the possession of virtual child pornography, pictures that appear to be children, but are actually animated... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Constructs. DANIEL ENGBER: Constructs can't be prosecuted because, the court said, the reasons that we allow the criminalization of the possession of images of real children - which may not actually be obscene - is to deter the abuse of actual children in the production of the photographs. And therefore, to forbid the virtual possession would be essentially, to prosecute a thought crime. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this goes on to cases of terrorism. A group of young men says, well, I'd really like to - maybe we should blow something up. When is it intent, and when is it action? DANIEL ENGBER: That's exactly right. And there was a big Supreme Court case not so long ago about whether, you know, giving money to terrorist organizations or expressing support for them - saying, you know, I hope they succeed - can itself be prosecuted. And the Supreme Court held that it could be, over strong objections that this violated the First Amendment. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about, well, a conundrum, what - the questions at the heart of the cannibal cop case: When does fantasy cross the line and become a crime? And as we've learned, it doesn't just involve grotesque pornography. Lawyers, we want to hear from you today. Is there a case in your experience that falls on one side or the other of that line? Give us a call, 800-989-8255; email us, talk@npr.org. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. We often hear about a conspiracy charge and certain types of criminal cases; conspiracy to commit murder or kidnap, for example. The question is often the same: When does talk about criminal behavior - or in the cannibal cop case, he called it fantasy - when does that cross the line into an actual crime? NEAL CONAN, HOST: A federal jury's answer to that question could put Gilberto Valle in prison for the rest of his life. Lawyers, we want to hear from you today. Is there a case, in your experience, that falls on one side or the other of the line between thought and crime - 800-989-8255; email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org; click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Our guests are Slate columnist Daniel Engberg; he covered the so-called cannibal cop trial in New York. We've posted a link to his latest story on that case, at npr.org. Also with us, Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at the George Washington University. He serves as legal affairs editor of the New Republic. Let's get a caller in. This is John(ph), John's on the line with us from Portland. JOHN: Hello. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi John. JOHN: Hello. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Is there a case, in your experience, that falls on this line? JOHN: Yes, I represented a man who had previously been convicted of murder, who was indicted for conspiring with an agent of the prosecution to commit sex crimes against young children. It was entirely a fantasy. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Entirely a fantasy, and it sounds like you feel he may have been entrapped as well. JOHN: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what's happening in the case? JOHN: Well, he was - the first jury ended in a hung jury, 6 to 6. And the second jury, comprised solely of women, convicted him on a 10-to-2 verdict, which is legal in Oregon. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And where is he now, in prison? JOHN: He's out. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So he served his time? JOHN: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what do you think convinced the jury, in your case? JOHN: Well, the first jury was able to go with me to this netherworld of fantasy, and the men understood it. The all-women jury just could not stomach the things that he, in writing, said he was going to do to these children, and... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And did that first jury split on a sexual basis? JOHN: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Interesting. Did you try an appeal on the basis of the jury? JOHN: No, the jury was properly selected. The prosecution did not improperly kick women off - or men off the jury. NEAL CONAN, HOST: But nevertheless it ended up with something that did not help your client. JOHN: Oh, he got convicted and sent back to prison. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, thank you - how often does this come up, in your experience? JOHN: This is - this type of case is relatively rare, and I think, quite frankly, that in our case it was the government's idea to take out an ad in this sex magazine. And I think what they're doing is that they're casting a net too wide, and they're creating criminals out of people who would be living their sexual fantasies in the privacy of their own bedroom. JOHN: And I think it's in some circumstances government-created crime, which we should all be against. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, John, appreciate it. JOHN: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Jeffrey Rosen, this is, again going to terrorism, this is a charge that defense attorneys will make in those cases, as well, that absent the government informant in a lot of cases, these defendants would not have acted. This is not a defense that's worked. JEFFREY ROSEN: That's exactly right. But - and we're especially sensitive, though, to entrapment, really, as it were, because that's the idea - that these crimes wouldn't have existed if the government hadn't planted the idea - when it comes to private matters like sexual fantasies. So although the terrorism and sex cases are similar in that they both involve words that are used to convict you of impermissible affiliations, the case in the fantasies is basically, just kidding, you know, essentially didn't really mean to do it. JEFFREY ROSEN: And you obviously don't want to create a situation where someone can say just kidding after any fantasizing about an illegal act and immunize themselves, but there's something unique to fetishes that do involve pure fantasy, and that's why it's so tough. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Daniel Engber, I wanted to ask you, one of the aspects of this case in New York was that the defendant's wife was one of the alleged victims and in fact provided critical evidence against him. DANIEL ENGBER: Sure, yes, and her testimony was quite dramatic. She burst into tears on the witness stand. She's the one that uncovered his fantasy chats and turned them over to the FBI when she fled to Nevada with their baby. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so she had provided the FBI with their - the password so they could get into the computer. The husband and wife shared the password. And his online chats were available as evidence because they were not communications with her. Had they been communications with her, they would have been excluded. DANIEL ENGBER: Exactly. Her testimony was a little bit complicated because she was unable to say anything that he had said directly to her. That was sort of a tantalizing and mysterious aspect of the trial. She alluded to something that was going on in the basement of their building. The defense objected. We didn't get to hear what that was. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So there may have been more; we just don't know. DANIEL ENGBER: Right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Michael(ph): How do our online searches become evidence, and when we browse online as private, does this actually mean private, or do companies like Google still track your Web history, therefore ending up in court cases such as these? Jeffrey? JEFFREY ROSEN: Well, Google and Facebook are required to respond to valid subpoenas. And a subpoena can be issued with nothing more than reasonable suspicion that the evidence is relevant to a legitimate investigation. So if you're suspected of... NEAL CONAN, HOST: It has to be issued by a judge. JEFFREY ROSEN: It has to be issued by a judge. So Google won't turn over the information, they say, without the subpoena, but with the subpoena, they're not allowed to resist unless they think it's overly broad. Some companies like Twitter have a policy of trying to resist subpoenas more vigorously. Others are said to be less concerned about the expressive dimensions. But basically, the law requires Google to turn the evidence over. JEFFREY ROSEN: Another way that the evidence can come in is if the police come upon it in the course of another search. And there was an incredibly important, really one of the most important computer search cases involving pornography decided just last week, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. And that was a case where a guy showed - set off an alert when he was crossing the Mexican border because he had been convicted of a sex offense before. JEFFREY ROSEN: And that, combined with the fact that he was going to Mexico, which is supposed to be a place where people do sex trafficking, led the border agents to take his computer, open it up, then take it 180 miles away from the border and do a forensic search of it for five days, and they found, in fact, he did have a huge amount of child pornography. JEFFREY ROSEN: And the Ninth Circuit basically said, you can't do broad computer searches without some degree of reasonable suspicion that someone is guilty of a crime to begin with. That was - that's a watershed holding, because other courts have said you can open up a computer and look at everything even without reasonable suspicion. JEFFREY ROSEN: Then there was a dispute about whether the fact that he had this previous sex conviction and was going to Mexico was enough to create reasonable suspicion. But that's a case where, you know, if in the course of a valid border search the agents do find child pornography, which happens surprisingly frequently, you see it's disturbing, you can certainly be prosecuted on that basis. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Xion(ph), Xion with us from New York. Hello, Xion, are you there? XION: Yes, sir, I am. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You're on the air. Go ahead, please. XION: Hi, I do want to tell a quick story. I'm in the military, and when I was a company commander, we had (unintelligible) who was disgruntled with his first-line supervisor. And I'm not sure if that's why he did it, but he had story after story of fantasies of him murdering her and doing all kinds of sexually explicit things. She was very disturbed by it. XION: Unfortunately, you know, being the commander, I was caught in between exactly what to do, because he didn't actually do anything, but the story was just so disturbing that we had to do something. So we ended up going forward with administrative punishment, moving him from under her leadership, as well as recommending him or mandating that he go receive psychological evaluation. XION: But it's kind of one of those - you're caught in between exactly what you can do, because he didn't really do anything officially yet, but I wish I had more help back then. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah, there was no overt act is what you're saying. XION: Yes, sir, there was none. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And is this one of those things that keeps you up at night? XION: It does, it does. I mean, obviously, well, as of right now, everybody's still OK, but who knows if he really was thinking about it or how far he went with thinking about it. Because it was more than one story, short story, handwritten. So he put a lot of effort and time into it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And again, it's - administrative action, in a military sense, not insignificant. This is - could destroy somebody's career. XION: Yes, yes sir, it could. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Gilbert Valle of course faces life in prison. There's a big distinction. But according to the federal court, anyway, he did take an overt act. Xion, thank you very much for the call. XION: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's see if we can go next to - this is Steven(ph), Steven with us from Grand Forks in North Dakota. STEVEN: Yes, hello, sir. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, go ahead, please. STEVEN: I represented - I was part of a team that represented Tarek Mehanna from Boston, and he was recently convicted of providing material support to al-Qaida and conspiracy to provide material support. And what we felt - we had to convince the jury that a lot of his speech that seemed to be pro-jihad, didn't actually mean that he wanted to sort of become a terrorist. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what was he alleged to have been planning? STEVEN: Well, he translated religious texts that were publicly available online from Arabic to English, and the government tried to fashion an intent to kill service people abroad, in part. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey, you were saying? JEFFREY ROSEN: Just struck by how difficult it is to prove really the central question of imminence, which is at the heart both of the Valle case and the case that you're describing. So the cornerstone of the American free speech tradition says that speech cannot be banned unless it's likely to produce imminent lawless action. Unlike Europe which allows the banning of hate speech, really, because it offends the dignity of a group, you have to prove that someone both intends to and is likely to have the effect of stirring up a crowd and actually leading others to kill. So that's what makes conspiracy of terrorism cases so hard, is simply expressing support for an organization likely to lead to imminent violent action, and it's very hard to prove in many cases. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Steven, did the federal government prove it in this case? STEVEN: Well, they did. He was convicted, and I would say that one provision of material support that the government proved was the actual translation of those religious texts. So you have the sort of conflict between conspiracy law and First Amendment rights is - was on display in that case and was on display in a lot of historical First Amendment cases that Professor Rosen, I'm sure, is familiar with. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, let me ask Daniel Engberger(ph) - Engber - excuse me - the - how did the prosecution get around the First Amendment in the cannibal cop case? DANIEL ENGBER: Well, the - in the government's closing statement, they said this is yelling fire in a crowded theater times 1,000, or 1,000 steps beyond that. So there was the argument that this was, you know, the speech was dangerous, I think. And beyond that, they had these examples of things he'd done in real life. And as Jeffrey has said, this question of our Internet searches are - is that speech, or is that action? And I think that was really central to what was going on in the trial. There were some examples given in the evidence of things that both Valle and his wife had typed into Google that were just clearly typing in what they were thinking without even intending to look for anything. DANIEL ENGBER: His wife typed in to Google, my husband doesn't love me anymore. I had trouble believing that she was actually searching for something in particular, and Valle himself typed similar things in. I think that, sort of, goes to show that we sort of use Google as an extension of our brains, and a lot of it gets typed in there, they're just thoughts passing from head to fingers. But these, you know, I'm curious - does - is that speech or is that action when you're searching for things online? Then, of course, there were the genuine actions he took, driving to Maryland. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Is that speech? Is that action, Jeffrey? JEFFREY ROSEN: Well... NEAL CONAN, HOST: If he went to a bookstore, would it be different? JEFFREY ROSEN: It's core speech. If - it's like going to a bookstore and browsing. And the right to read anonymously is at the heart of freedom of thought, and our ability to decide how many of our thoughts, sensation and emotions are communicated to others, according to my hero Justice Brandeis was at the core of both the right to privacy and the First Amendment. On the other hand, you can also use a Google search to find the murder weapons, and that's why this is right at the core of both of these things. JEFFREY ROSEN: You know, interestingly, Google itself claims that its search algorithm is speech, and has used that claim to resist efforts to regulate it by, for example, the Federal Trade Commission against potential anti-trust violations. So Google thinks that the algorithm itself and how it ranks search results is at the core of what the First Amendment protects, including people who use that to do First Amendment-protected activity too. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Steven, thanks very much for the call. STEVEN: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the line between thought and crime. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And let me reintroduce our guests. Daniel Engber is a Slate columnist who covered the so-called cannibal cop trial in New York, where Gilberto Valle was convicted earlier this week of conspiracy and also using his police officer's computer to search for - for misusing his equipment to search for victims. Also with us, Jeffrey Rosen, a professor of law at The George Washington University and legal affairs editor of the New Republic. And, Daniel Engber, the defense in this case, said this is an important case not just for Mr. Valle, but for all of us. DANIEL ENGBER: Yeah. They really appealed to the jury to defend the right to have fantasies. I thought that case was made more compellingly by the government at the end of the government's closing statement, the assistant U.S. attorney said - described some of Gilberto Valle's fantasies and said, you know, these fantasies are not OK. And I found that very disturbing, sitting there in the courtroom, to hear a representative of the U.S. government announcing which fantasies are OK and which ones aren't. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that, Jeffrey Rosen, not just in this case, sexual cases, but in terrorism cases as well, other kinds of conspiracy cases, this is right on the edge. JEFFREY ROSEN: It's true. It's very hard to criminalize fetishistic fantasies, and it raises deep First Amendment issues. And it's interesting that the times when Congress has tried to criminalize fantasy and fetish overtly, it's run into First Amendment problems. I think of the federal law banning crush videos, which is a terrible fetish of people who likes seeing animals being crushed and tortured. NEAL CONAN, HOST: By women in high heels. JEFFREY ROSEN: Exactly so. And the Supreme Court struck that law down under the First Amendment, on the grounds that it will be possible to download a hunting video in one state where hunting was legal, just to film it and say where hunting was legal and to download it in a state where hunting was illegal, and the act of shooting the animal could meet the federal definition, and therefore it violated the First Amendment. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What that's saying was excessively broad. It did say it can be prosecuted as animal cruelty. JEFFREY ROSEN: That's exactly right. But what it couldn't - what couldn't be - really, what we're talking about is, is it OK to ban certain thoughts as immoral? Because that was the animus - the impetus behind the fetish bill and also behind, I think, Daniel was saying, the jurors who may have been swayed here. That they just thought that no decent person should be allowed to think like that. And in order to ban that, consistently, with the First Amendment, you have to come up with a non-thought related reason, like, for example, animal cruelty or, in this case, murder, in order to forbid it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Interesting. And we'll see if this case goes to appeal. Daniel Engber, do we know if it's going to be appealed? DANIEL ENGBER: Well, that's what Valle's family and the lawyers had said. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. We'll await that outcome and see what happens there. Thank you very much for your time, Daniel. DANIEL ENGBER: Thanks very much. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Again, Slate columnist, Daniel Engber, and you can find a link to his most recent column on the cannibal cop case at npr.org. Just click on TALK OF THE NATION. Jeffrey Rosen, as always, thank you. JEFFREY ROSEN: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at the George Washington University, legal affairs editors at The New Republic, with us here in Studio 3A. Up next, what happens when news becomes a vocabulary event? Sequester, malarkey, what's the word you look out after a major news event? 800-989-8255. Stay with us. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Jurors in a New York federal court found a former New York City police officer guilty of plotting to kidnap and cook his wife and other women. The defense argued that Gilberto Valle never acted on his fantasies, and described the verdict as a case of thought prosecution. Daniel Engber, columnist, Slate Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law, George Washington University Law School

Geschworene eines Bundesgerichts in New York fand einen ehemaligen New Yorker Polizisten für Verschwörung zur Entführung und zum Kochen seiner Frau und anderer Frauen schuldig. Die Verteidigung argumentierte, dass Gilberto Valle nie auf seine Fantasien reagiert habe, und beschrieb das Urteil als einen Fall von Gedankenverfolgung. Daniel Engber, Kolumnist, Slate Jeffrey Rosen, Rechtsprofessor, George Washington University Law School

纽约一家联邦法院的陪审员裁定，一名前纽约市警察犯有密谋绑架并烹煮其妻子和其他女性的罪行。被告辩称，这只是吉尔贝托·瓦莱从未按照自己的幻想行事，并将判决描述为思想起诉。丹尼尔·恩博，《Slate》专栏作家和乔治华盛顿大学法学院法学教授杰弗里·罗森报道。

LYNN NEARY, HOST: And now, we turn to Cyprus and how that island's bank bailout could affect the global economy. About an hour ago, lawmakers in Cyprus rejected a $13 billion bank bailout package that included a hefty tax on deposits on that country's banks. The money raised was - will help pay for the bailout of crumbling banks. What happens next is far from clear. Already the turmoil has triggered a run on cash machines in Cyprus. The very thought of savers pulling their deposits out of banks is making investors everywhere very nervous about the stability of financial systems. Joining us now in studio 3A to explain the crisis in Cyprus is Marilyn Geewax. She is senior business editor for NPR News. Marilyn, so good to have you with us. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Hi, Lynn. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So tell us about what just happened now, in Cyprus. Explain what just happened now. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, let's just say that if we had been talking about at this time of year, a couple of decades ago, we probably be focused on sun tan lotion because it was mostly known as a tourist center. It was a nice, warm place to go and relax. But over the years, it's become known as a financial center, kind of the way that Cayman Islands has become on in this hemisphere a place where people have fun and they invest. Well, in Cyprus, a lot of people were going there and putting their money into the banks. And what happened was there was a banking crisis that looks like the banks were crumbling. And because Cyprus, even though it's a tiny island nation, it's part of the European Union. So they to the European Union, to the Central Bankers there and said help bail us out. We need help. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: There was a plan put together this weekend and the parliament in Cyprus needed to vote on it this afternoon. So what we saw this afternoon was that vote on do you like this bailout package or don't you like it, can you approve it? Well, the problem is the streets were full of people who were protesting. They were very angry about what was in this package. And the reason they were so angry was because part of the way that they were going to pay for this bailout of the Cyprus banks was by taking some money away from depositors. So imagine how you would feel if you put your money into your bank and you thought it was safe, you thought it was insured, and all of a sudden, you found out that you're going to lose, for people with bigger deposits, up to nearly 10 percent of their money which was going to go away to pay for a bailout. So people were pretty upset. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And so the government turned down that... MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Yes. LYNN NEARY, HOST: ...that idea. So they're not going to. No tax. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: It was so distressing to so many people. I mean, they had, I think if you look in the papers today, you'll see a lot of pictures where people painted the word no on their palms where their money should be. They were very distraught about it. And... LYNN NEARY, HOST: Because people were, you know, some of the smaller - people with smaller amounts in the bank. You know, you're talking about people's retirement funds and just this year, college funds. Things like that were going to do. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: I think you'd see more than people just writing the word no on the palm of their hand. If you told Americans that all of a sudden, you know, a big chunky, you're savings was going to be used to directly bailout bankers who made terrible mistakes, if not, actually committed corrupt actions. So of course, the people were very distraught. And in the end, the parliament, as you said, they voted just a little while ago, and not one lawmaker voted in favor of taking away people's money. Now, in terms of what people think about that. I mean, how do investors around the world react to this? You know, a lot of people thought this was a crazy plan. They were very unhappy with the European Union officials for coming up with a plan that took away depositors money. And that's because ultimately - and here's the part where it affects us, this whole financial global system is based on simple trust. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: We have to believe that if you put your money in the bank, I mean, it's - you have to believe that it's going to have some value and that when you come back, that money is still going to be there. If you start to erode that trust in the basic banking system, you're really undermining the whole global financial system. And that was the thing that had everybody saying, holy cow, what could they be thinking? MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: I mean, I've seen some economists and analysts who were really - reacted very strongly and said this was just crazy talk. They never should have done this, that you're taking away that fundamental trust in the system. And remember, we here in the United States, our banks are often very integrated in a lot of financial ways with Europe. I mean, I can't - you know, my mother has a credit card in her wallet that's an HSBC credit card. And that's a European bank, Barclays, UBS. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: I mean, there are many banks here in the United States where there's not that much difference between our banking system and theirs in that all of this money flows around the world. So people watch this very carefully. We want to have a high level of trust in banking, and taking away deposits was not a great idea, maybe. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, you've talked about the situation in Cyprus as being kind of like a game of dominoes where one domino falls. And one of the big pieces here was Russia, which was - I was fascinated when I started hearing how upset Vladimir Putin was about this situation. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And, you know, he gets cranky. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah. Explain that to us. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, now this is, again, part of this idea of why things are so connected. And here's why they did want to do this. All right. Cyprus is a center for banking, but it's one of those somewhat secretive centers for banking. And there were a lot of Russian billionaires, people who've made a great deal of money in energy, and they need a place to put their money. So they were putting it into these Cypriot banks. And when the banks started to crumble, a lot of people in Germany, a lot of Europeans said, you know, we're really kind of sick of all these bank bailouts that we get stuck with. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: So for once, can we please put the hurt on somebody else? Let's take it out on the depositors. Well, if a lot of the people who deposited money in banks in Cyprus were Russians, you know, if you think about it - let's just say the Germans and the Russians, if you look back over the past century, haven't always had the warmest relations. There's a lot of residual suspicion and anger toward each other. So there were a lot of people in Germany who said, why do we always get tagged when it's Russian money actually going into these banks? LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Make them pay up. And that's where this idea of cutting into the Russian depositors came from. And so on the positive side of this plan, you can see why people would say that. Why not make the Russians pay up a little bit? LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right. So they're not going to do that now. But what are they going to do? MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: So now the plot thickens. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Do we have an idea? MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: (Unintelligible) yes. So plan B. Well, here's an idea for plan B. Not only does Cyprus have nice sunshine and lots of fun things to do there, but they also have a lot of natural gas. And as we see in our own country, natural gas is really being developed now. There's a lot of demand for it. And it's possible, some of this, you know, we just don't know. Is it just crazy talk? Or could it really come together? MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: But they're trying to cook up an idea where maybe if you promise natural gas reserves to the Russians, to say to Putin and his compatriots to pony up some of this money, give us several billion dollars to help bail out these Cypriot banks, and in exchange for that bailout, you can, you know - of course Russia is very big in the energy business - you could come and use some of this natural gas and you'll get repaid that way. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: So maybe there's some kind of a deal that could be put together that involves this natural resource and Russian energy expertise where they can find a way to bail themselves out with their own natural resources. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Let's take a call now. We have Christopher calling from Sacramento, California. Hi, Christopher. CHRISTOPHER: Hi there. How are you today? LYNN NEARY, HOST: Good. Thanks. Go ahead. CHRISTOPHER: Good. Yeah, I think it's interesting that a lot of people are commenting on the connection between the Cypriot banks and the Greek bank crisis. So many of the Cypriot banks had their money deposited in the Greek banks... MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: That's right. CHRISTOPHER: ...and then when the European Union forced creditors to take a 53 percent haircut, that devastated Cyprus. And so I think it's important to note that this is not necessarily a crisis of the Cypriots', you know, creation but it was something that was imposed on them three years ago. And the EU has only now decided, you know, to try to help them in this fashion. So I think, from the Cypriots' perspective, they find it rather unfair. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Right. And let's... LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, let me have Marilyn explain that a little bit more. Thanks so much for bringing up that point, Christopher. It's a good one. CHRISTOPHER: Yes, thank you. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Well, that's true, that, you know, these banks, when money comes in, you drop off your deposit, and the bank has to do something with it. They don't just put it in a shoebox and bury it in the backyard. They have to invest it in something... LYNN NEARY, HOST: Maybe they should. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Increasingly, that shoebox seems like a great idea, doesn't it? But they had to do something with the money, and one of the things they did was because they're part of this European Union, they were investing in European bonds. And particularly, there are a lot of connections in business and - ethnically between the people of Cyprus and the people of Greece, so a lot of the investments went into these Greek bonds. Well, if you've been following the news at all over the last two years or so, Greek bonds have been in a lot of trouble. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: They've had to have several buyouts, and they also had to have some write-downs where you didn't get back what you thought you were going to get. And that was a big source of the problem for the Cypriot banks. But allow me to say, you know, Cyprus isn't also just a completely innocent bystander here in that they expanded their banking system very dramatically, far beyond what you would think a small island, you know, this is a little island in the Mediterranean Sea. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And, you know, their bank assets were something like eight times their gross domestic product. So they really, really got into banking and maybe they should have focus a little bit more on the tourism because the banking has ended up being just too big. And that's why, you know, when the E.U. went to try to figure out how can we do this bailout, people who don't know about it's the Willie Sutton, you know, go where the money is. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: And in Cyprus, where the money is, is in the banks. They had developed an economy all around having these huge deposits. So when the banks are in trouble and they have these big deposits, it sort of make sense from the perspective of the European officials to say, let's go where the money is and try to get some of those deposits to help pay for these bailouts. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Oh, back to your domino's analogy. What does this mean for the U.S. and for the U.S. - the economic recover here in this country? MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: It's such a connected world. You know, this is just such a fine example of how linked everything is. Think about this. The population of Cyprus is about the same size as Birmingham, Alabama. And Birmingham went bankrupt about a year and a half ago. But I can't imagine - it didn't seem like people in Europe were sitting around saying, oh my goodness, what's happening in Birmingham? And that's because Birmingham was part of a state, its part of a big country, it just sort of blended in, and United States has so far at least always managed to pay it bills and so people didn't have any systemic concerns particularly. But in Cyprus because there been one country after another with all these problems, people are really worried about chained reactions. LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right. Well, thanks so much for being with us, Marilyn. MARILYN GEEWAX, BYLINE: Oh, you're welcome. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Marilyn Geewax is a senior business editor for NPR News, and she joined us in Studio 3A. And you are listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Cyprus lawmakers rejected a $13 billion bailout package that included controversial taxes on bank deposits. The proposed tax would have helped to pay for the bailout of crumbling banks. NPR's Marilyn Geewax explains how the events in Cyprus could affect the global economy and what may happen next.

Die zyprischen Gesetzgeber lehnten ein Rettungspaket in Höhe von 13 Milliarden US-Dollar ab, das umstrittene Steuern auf Bankeinlagen beinhaltete. Die vorgeschlagene Steuer hätte dazu beigetragen, die Rettung angeschlagener Banken zu finanzieren. Marilyn Geewax von NPR erklärt, wie sich die Ereignisse in Zypern auf die Weltwirtschaft auswirken könnten und was als nächstes passieren könnte.

塞浦路斯议员否决了一项130亿美元的救助计划，其中包括有争议的银行存款税。拟议中的税收将有助于支付为救助摇摇欲坠的银行所产生的费用。美国国家公共电台的玛丽琳·吉瓦克斯解释了塞浦路斯事件会如何影响全球经济和接下来可能发生的事。

LYNN NEARY, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Lynn Neary in Washington. The Centers for Disease Control is warning of another deadly superbug. This one, known as CRE, ultimately left seven patients dead after an outbreak in 2011 at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. CDC director Tom Frieden has called the bug a nightmare bacteria. It can resist even the strongest antibiotics. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Patients in hospitals and nursing homes are most vulnerable to the bug, and Dr. Frieden is urging hospitals to take precautions to stop the spread of these infections. If you have any questions about superbugs, give us a call. Our number is 800-989-8255. The email address is talk@npr.org. Or join the conversation at our website by going to npr.org, and then you can click on TALK OF THE NATION. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Later in the program, Ken Rudin on filibusters, but first superbugs. Joining us to talk about this nightmare bacteria is Rob Stein, NPR correspondent and senior editor of the science desk, and he is here with me in Studio 3A. Good to have you with us. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Oh, nice to be here, Lynn. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Also joining us, Carl Zimmer, a science writer and blogger specializing in the evolution of parasites, and he joins us from the Yale University studio. Good to have you also, Carl. CARL ZIMMER: Thanks for having me. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Rob, I wanted to start with you. First of all, what's unique about this particular superbug that we heard about earlier this week? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, this is a family of bacteria that are highly resistant to antibiotics and as you mentioned are called CREs. That stands for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. It's a mouthful. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: But what it means is that there's this last-ditch type of antibiotic called carbapenems that doctors use when nothing else works. You've tried everything else, nothing else works, and all they have left is just one group of antibiotics. And these bacteria don't even respond to that. They can't even cure people when they're sick. That's why people are so concerned about them. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And that's why they're calling it a nightmare. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Right, Dr. Frieden from the CDC, he called them nightmare bacteria for really three reasons. One is that they're so highly resistant, there's really very little of any antibiotics left that will work. Number two, they have a very high mortality rate. About half of people who get these end up dying. And the third reason is that the mechanism that these bacteria use to beat back the antibiotics can spread from one type of bacteria to another. So that raises the risk they could get out of hospitals and start to spread more widely. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah. Now scientists have been tracking this bug for a while, right, it's not a brand new bug. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Oh that's right, this - it's a family of bacteria, and they've been around for a while, and they've been aware of them for a while. The reason they're concerned is when they took a look at what's happened over the past decade or so in this country, they found a very significant increase in how common these bacteria are now. It's - they're still very rare, and they're limited to hospitals, but they've quadrupled in terms of the proportion of bacteria that have this resistant capability and also quadrupled in terms of the proportion of hospitals that are reporting cases. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, this is - so the people who are most obviously likely to get infected are patients in hospitals or nursing homes. How concerned should the general population be? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: We really don't have to be that concerned right now for the general population. As I said, these infections are really only occurring in hospitals, and they're still even in hospitals fairly rare and unusual. So they're not something that pose a threat to the general population. You don't have to really worry about picking this up by walking around right now. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: This is something that they're trying to get the message out so that hospitals are much more aware of them and hospitals start taking more aggressive steps to prevent these infections from spreading. LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right, well we're going to turn now to our other guest, Carl. Carl wrote the article how - Carl Zimmer wrote the article "How Scientists Stalked a Lethal Superbug With the Killer's Own DNA." And he wrote that for Wired last month about the superbug outbreak at NIH. And you can find a link to this article on our website at npr.org. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So Carl, let's walk through this a little bit. As I understand it, scientists used genetic techniques to track this superbug at NIH. Can you explain how that works, or where did they start? CARL ZIMMER: Sure. So when these kinds of bacteria show up in a hospital, what usually happens is that microbiology use more traditional methods to figure out what's going on. So for example they might take a swab from someone's skin or from their mouth or so on and put it on a Petri dish or in a flask and just see what grows, and that can take a while. That can take, you know, up to a day or more even. CARL ZIMMER: And when you think about it, that's kind of an old-fashioned way of figuring out what's in your hospital and what's making people sick. So in July - I'm sorry in June 2011, there was a patient who was being brought to the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and they were told when this patient was arriving that this patient was carrying one of these bacteria, one of these nightmare bacteria; it's KPC for short. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And how did they know that in the first place? Was there a test or something? CARL ZIMMER: Yeah, there's one of these more traditional tests. And so they knew what they were dealing with. And so they thought that they were - they could prepare for this patient, and they would prevent that patient from making other patients sick. This patient actually wasn't actually having an active infection with this disease. It was just sort of - the bacteria just sort of carried along. CARL ZIMMER: And then the patient left, and they thought that they were out of the woods, this was in July, and then in August some - another patient got sick with KPC, a patient who had been there the whole time, and then another and then another, and then they started to realize they were dealing with an outbreak. CARL ZIMMER: And rather than just using more traditional technology, they took advantage of the fact that the hospital is surrounded by the National Institutes of Health. And there are all these experts on sequencing genomes. So they did something that is almost never done: They actually started sequencing the whole genome of some of these bacteria to figure out how it was going from patient to patient, and so they could help them to actually fight this outbreak. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And can I just back up and ask you something? In this case where they knew that this patient came in, had the bacteria, and then the patient left, and then a month later some other patient gets the bacteria, is that extremely unusual, an unusual way for something like that to spread? CARL ZIMMER: You know, we don't know enough about these outbreaks to say whether it's unusual or not. The thing is that, you know, scientists who track these outbreaks use very old-fashioned techniques that were really pioneered in the 19th century to figure out how diseases spread from one person to another, even within hospitals. So say OK, were these two patients in the same ward? And maybe that is - could be how it could have traveled from one to the other. They have all these sort of indirect clues. CARL ZIMMER: So if you can actually look at the entire genome of the bacteria that were growing on one patient and then look at the entire genome of the bacteria on another patient, you can say wait a minute, these are exactly the same bacteria. They share the same mutations. And you can actually draw a much more accurate map of how that outbreak is spreading, and then you can take steps to stop it. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, how - what did they discover? What did they find out? CARL ZIMMER: Well, one thing they discovered was that this bacteria, this KPC, was a lot tougher than people had really given it credit for. So it seems to have somehow colonized a lot of patients or maybe even surfaces in the hospital after this initial patient showed up, and then from there it made other people sick and infected other people. CARL ZIMMER: So it seems to be a very durable, crafty, elusive kind of microbe, and so you can't just take kind of ordinary measures against this thing. You have to get really drastic, and that's what they did. And they did a whole lot of really draconian - they put a lot of draconian measures in place. CARL ZIMMER: You know, they isolated all the patients, they call it cohorting. There was staff, nurses and doctors who could only treat them and nobody else, you know, hand washing, all these things that they were enforcing. And they even had sort of minders who would just go up to, you know, the chief of surgery and say you need to use two squirts of that hand gel if you're going to go in that room. CARL ZIMMER: They were taking these sorts of measures, and they knew that they needed to because they could see from the genomes that this thing was still spreading, and it was going - it was jumping around different wards, even. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Again they still had - but how was it spreading? I'm still not understanding exactly how it was spreading. CARL ZIMMER: Well... LYNN NEARY, HOST: And I understand they tracked it genetically, but it had to spread somehow physically. Was it just spreading - I mean what was happening? What was making it... CARL ZIMMER: It is going from patients to - we don't know precisely how it's going, but there are some possibilities. One possibility is that it would go from one patient to a staff member to another patient. One possibility is that the patient contaminated the stuff in the room and it then contaminated a patient who used that room, those sorts of things. CARL ZIMMER: They still don't know a lot, but what they do know is that even when they had all the patients as carefully quarantined as possible, the bacteria was still getting out and getting to different floors of the hospital. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Wow. Rob Stein, this has great implications for hospitals and the precautions that they have to take against a superbug of this kind. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Absolutely, absolutely. This - that's - the case that Carl's describing is a very dramatic example of the sort of thing that happens in hospitals, you know, to some degree fairly routinely with this infection and with other types of infections. And that's the key, really, at this point for these CRE superbugs, to try to keep it in check is to get hospitals to be much more aware of the problem and much more aggressive in terms of identifying patients who might be infected, taking steps to isolate them, sterilizing everything they come in contact with, making sure that staff, nurses and doctors, do commonsense things like wash their hands and sterilize themselves before they go from one patient to another. LYNN NEARY, HOST: You know, I have to say I've spent some time in hospitals over the last couple years, in emergency rooms, and, you know, no criticism of the hospitals I've been in, but, you know, they're not always as careful as they could be, I don't think. I mean, what is a patient supposed to do, stop everyone and say did you wash your hands for, you know, the length of the song "Happy Birthday"? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, yeah, well, you know, increasingly people are giving advice like that to patients to say don't be shy. You know, if a doctor walks into the room, you'd say hey, doc, did you wash your hands today? You can do it with a smile in a way to sort of disarm them, but, you know, this is nothing to be messed around with. You have to take it very seriously. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah, so implications here for hospitals, implications here for patients and their caregivers, the people who are taking care of them. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Right, right, of course, if anybody comes in contact with somebody who is carrying one of these infections, they have to be very careful themselves that they don't become infected and then spread it to somebody else and onward and onward like that. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah, and that would be how it would get outside the hospital or nursing home environment. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, and again that's the big concern with these CRE bugs is that right now it's limited to hospitals, but there's no reason to think that it might not start to spread if we're not careful. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah, and if you have any questions about superbugs for Rob Stein and Carl Zimmer, give us a call. The number is 800-989-8255. And you can send us an email at talk@npr.org. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Lynn Neary. LYNN NEARY, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Lynn Neary. Superbugs like CRE are clearly a problem. The head of the CDC made that point on Tuesday when he held a press conference meant to, quote, "sound an alarm." Health care institutions in at least 42 states have reported at least one infection. But there may be more to it than that, something the CDC acknowledges. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So far only six states mandate reporting cases, and there are several separate systems for keeping an eye out for outbreaks. Dr. Frieden did sound a hopeful note, though, saying that there's a narrow window of opportunity now to fight these bugs and stop their spread. What questions do you have about superbugs? Now is your chance to get them answered. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Give us a call, our number is 800-989-8255. You can also email us attalk@npr.org or join the conversation on our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. Science writer Carl Zimmer and NPR's Rob Stein are my guests. And we're going to take a call now. Let's go to Rodney(ph) in Framingham, Massachusetts. Hi Rodney. RODNEY: Hi, how are you all doing? LYNN NEARY, HOST: I'm good, go ahead. RODNEY: Listen, I am a seventh grade science teacher, and for the last seven years while teaching evolution, we've explored the evolutionary arms race that we're losing with drug-resistant bacteria. And particularly we've done an experiment where we test antibacterial soaps versus non-antibacterial hand-washing methods. RODNEY: And over the last seven years of this launched a little study. We've come up with hot water does generally better than all the other hand-washing methods, and in no year have the triclosan-based soaps worked any better than anything else, which raises a lot of questions for our students about how we are affecting the evolution of bacteria with the overuse of the (unintelligible) antibacterial products in our society. RODNEY: And I wanted to know what the guests had to say about the role that humans are playing in some of these sort of choices of hand washing and antibiotics in livestock feed and so forth in the speeding up of the selection for drug-resistant bacteria like this (unintelligible). LYNN NEARY, HOST: Thanks, Rodney, thanks for that. Rob Stein? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, he raised a very important point, which is that we certainly are playing a big role in this, and the overuse of antibiotics certainly is fueling the development of superbugs, and one of the things that the CDC and others are urging is that doctors be much more cautious and judicious in the way they prescribe antibiotics because we know that it is often prescribed in cases where it's not necessary, and the overuse of these drugs causes these bacteria and other microbes to mutate and become resistant, and that's really part of what's fueling the problem here. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: And the same goes with the use of - there's a lot of concern about the use of antibiotics in livestock, that's another issue that people are concerned about, that that may also be playing a role. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And what about antibacterial soap? We have a question here from an email from Virginia(ph) asking about that: Does the use of antibacterial soap increase the likelihood that my body won't respond properly to standard antibiotics? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah. I have not seen any evidence of that sort, that by using those soaps that you're going to be somehow making yourself more vulnerable. But as the caller said, you know, washing your hands with good hot water, regular soap, is probably really all you need to do to protect yourself in terms of personal hygiene. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Carl, do you have anything to add to that? CARL ZIMMER: Well, by doing anything that exposes bacteria, even good bacteria, to antibiotics, you're creating the opportunity for the evolution of resistance. Any genes that provide resistance are going to become more common, and mutations to those genes are going to be favored by natural selection. And the real tricky thing about bacteria is that once they've got these highly evolved resistance genes to different drugs, they trade them. They swap them around. And actually you'll have some bacteria like the bacteria we're talking about today, which have accumulated lots and lots of genes for lots of different antibiotics. CARL ZIMMER: And so you are - sometimes you're facing bacteria that are resistant to just about every known antibiotic. So in my article in Wired where I was talking about this outbreak of these bacteria called KPC, there are really just a handful of antibiotics that were left that could be used because they had become resistant. They evolved resistance to so many other kinds. CARL ZIMMER: And these are nasty things. These are drugs like there's one called Colistin, which scientists, which doctors had abandoned in the 1970s because it does things like cause kidney failure. But they were faced with a situation where their patient was either going to have to die because they didn't give them antibiotics or be given a drug that was going to cause them some serious harm. CARL ZIMMER: And the really amazing thing was that over the course of this outbreak, they could watch mutations arise which made these bacteria become resistant to Colistin, as well. So there were patients where these bacteria were evolving to become resistant to everything we have. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Well, so Rob Stein, does that mean we're going back to a time - I mean, there was a time when there were no antibiotics, which was not a good situation, either. Are we going back in some way? Is this a - is that where this is leading, to a time when we can't use antibiotics? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: That's the fear. I was talking to somebody about this the other day, and that was the image that they raised, that we might be returning to the pre-antibiotic era, when we couldn't treat commonplace infections. We've all grown up with antibiotics, so we're used to, you know, if you get sick, you go to a doctor, you get an antibiotic, and you get better. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: You know, as time goes by, and more and more of these superbugs evolve that we may get closer and closer to a time when they're not working. I mean we're certainly not there yet, and there's - most infections can be treated. Most people get better. LYNN NEARY, HOST: How far away are we? I mean, is there any way of knowing? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: We don't know, we don't know, but , you know, the concern certainly is intensifying, and there's starting to be some efforts now to try to get at this in lots of different ways, including trying to develop new antibiotics, trying to develop new ways to treat infections that don't fuel the evolution of resistant microbes, that sort of thing. LYNN NEARY, HOST: I have a question here from Kate(ph), and it's a good one. A question: What are you talking about? What does this sick look like? You keep saying bug, sick, it. What does it look like? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: The bacteria themselves? LYNN NEARY, HOST: The illness. I mean, what are we talking about? I think that's what she means by that. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, well, these infections can manifest themselves in lots of different ways. In fact Carl mentions, you know, sometimes people who are infected with these microbes don't have any symptoms at all, which is part of what makes it so... LYNN NEARY, HOST: Really? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah, they might just be carrying it. It might not be causing any illness. But then they - like that patient showed up at the NIH Clinical Center, ended up spreading it to other people who did develop symptoms and did get sick. And, you know, the symptoms can range, you know, range widely to being very serious. If these infections get into the bloodstream, that's when they can become life-threatening. LYNN NEARY, HOST: But what kind of illness might a person experience? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Well, it could be anything like a gastrointestinal, you know, symptoms that - a lot of these bugs, these CRE bugs, that's where they live normally is in our gut, and they're there, and they're not causing any illness. It's when they spread outside of - to other parts of our body when they cause more serious symptoms. LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right, let's take a call from Lisa(ph) in California, in Truckee, California, Lisa? LISA: Hi, how are you? LYNN NEARY, HOST: I'm good, thank you. LISA: I had a quick question. OK, back in 2004, I got a community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staph, the MRSA. I was a runner. I had no experience going in the hospital, but I managed to get this bug in the community. I was not a drug user, IV drug user like some people can get it out in the community. So basically I went in with flu-like symptoms and ended up with pneumonia. And I went onto a respirator and was in a coma for a month and a half. LISA: And luckily there were the two drugs, the Vancomycin and the Zyvox, that I was able to take. However, at that time in 2004, this seemed to be a hospital-acquired bug, as well. So I was wondering how you can see this progression of the current bug that is now in the hospitals either getting into the community or how it basically - if it did transform from MRSA or some relative of MRSA how you can see how it could still get out into the community. Thank you. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Absolutely. The MRSA experience is exactly the scenario that people are worried about. MRSA first came to attention as a hospital infection, it was limited to hospitals. There was a lot of attention given to it to try to keep it from spreading outside hospitals. Nevertheless, it did. And as the caller said, now it's pretty commonplace outside in communities around hospitals. And the concern is that the CRE infections will follow that same pattern. LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right, thanks for your call, Lisa. Here's an email from Kay(ph) in San Jose: Is there a way I can find out if a hospital has antibiotic-resistant cases? I don't think asking them will result in anything definitely, more likely a vague reassurance. In my great-grandmother's day, infection was the reason people felt a trip to the hospital was a death sentence. CARL ZIMMER: Yeah. There are more - I think, as we mentioned earlier in the program, there are - more and more states are requiring hospitals to report hospital-acquired infections, and some of those databases are available publicly. And you can go online and, sort of, see what the infections rate are at your local hospitals. LYNN NEARY, HOST: OK. Let's take a call from Minneapolis. Hello. Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hello? LYNN NEARY, HOST: Hi. Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I'm calling regarding MRSA, the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. That is what was just discussed and previous caller regarding community acquired - it's community acquired and hospital acquired. And if the hospital does not report it, tell you, it generally goes on your - in your file, in your chart as complications of surgery. So it's very important. I had a heart attack. It's really important that when you go into the hospital you tell them or give in a written request that you've been tested before or during the process of the admittance. LYNN NEARY, HOST: OK. Let me ask our experts here about that. Thanks for calling very much. Rob, as I understand it, that's one of the things I think the CDC wants hospitals to start doing is testing patients, I guess, who are at risk of this - or would be all patients - as they come in to see if they have these bacteria in their system. But I gather that either not all hospitals are equipped to do it or don't have the resources. I mean what's the situation there with - how would that help, and why aren't hospitals doing it? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Right. That is absolutely the first step in trying to control something like this is to identify patients who are carrying these infections. And so, as you mentioned, that's one of the things the CDC is urging hospitals to do, more routinely, is to test patients as they come in to see if they're infected with this. And if they are, take some steps to prevent it from spreading, immediately isolate them from other patients and also for hospitals that are transferring patients from one to another, from one facility to another to alert the next facility that they have a patient coming in who's carrying this infection, because the places that are hit hardest by this are long-term care facilities. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Those sort of hospitals, the infection rate is closer to 17 percent. And what happens often is you have a patient transferred from a hospital to a nursing home, and the nursing home doesn't know that - or from a nursing hospital to a hospital and, one, the hospital doesn't know that they're getting a patient who's carrying this infection. So they don't know to take these steps to prevent it from spreading. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yeah. But a hospital - can a hospital test every patient who's coming into their emergency room? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: You know, they can test patients who they have some reason to believe may be infected. And if they can do that, that would go a long way toward preventing this from spreading even further. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So is - the burden for preventing the spread of this, is it really on the hospitals? ROB STEIN, BYLINE: At this point, yes, absolutely. The burden is on the hospitals, because that's where these infections are occurring. They're not occurring in the communities yet. So it's not your regular doctor's office or your mini-clinics where this is a real problem. It's in community hospitals and nursing homes and places like that. Those are the places where we have a window of opportunity, here, to prevent these from spreading further. LYNN NEARY, HOST: We're talking with NPR's Rob Stein and science writer Carl Zimmer about super bugs and how to prevent them from spreading. And you are listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Carl, I just want to follow up with you on this idea of testing patients as they come in, because at the NIH they knew that a patient - the patient had this bacteria, and yet, they still weren't able to prevent it from spreading, right? CARL ZIMMER: Well, yes, that's true. I mean - but they learned a lot along the way after the out - during the outbreak. And afterwards, they took a big risk by actually going quite public with this. They published a detailed paper in a scientific journal explaining their experiences. They went to other hospitals and said this is what happened to us, don't let this happen to you. And so there are lessons that they have learned, and that they hope will become a part of the regular practice of stopping these bugs. CARL ZIMMER: And, you know, the fact is that now they do actually test a lot of the patients that come into their hospital. And if they have any suspicion, they run a test. And it's actually a test that they themselves designed, because the earlier tests just weren't sensitive enough. They were missing people. They - people would basically just test negative who actually had the bacteria on them. So now, they're using much more sensitive tests. And so obviously, this kind of test should not be limited to this one hospital. CARL ZIMMER: I mean the fact NIH took a big hit for going public about this, but the fact is that this is happening all over the place, as Rob was saying. I mean the fact is there are two million hospital-acquired infections in the United States every year. There are over 90,000 deaths from hospital-acquired infections every year in the United States. And this is not limited to the United States. This is a problem that is being faced all over the world. We actually exported this particular strain of bacteria, I wrote about, called KPC. CARL ZIMMER: We exported it all over the world to places like Israel and Greece and so on who have been dealing with huge outbreaks. It's the same bacteria. And so we're all grappling with this together. So we all need to be much more careful about stopping this thing. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Let's see if we can get one more caller in here. Christine in Sacramento, California. Hi, Christine. CHRISTINE: Hi. How are you doing? LYNN NEARY, HOST: Good. CHRISTINE: I am both a registered nurse, I'm also a health care attorney, and I advise health care providers on how to treat patients appropriate way and how to follow the law and regulations. But in September, I was hospitalized at a major university medical center. And it was - I was very diligent. Every time someone came into the room, no matter who it was, I asked them to make sure they had cleaned their hands. And I watched them as they used the canisters that were mounted on the wall, and I contracted Clostridium difficile, and - which is a very severe infection and very difficult to treat. CHRISTINE: And the - I later found out and was advised by my physician was that the alcohol-based solutions that are in those canisters are not effective in killing off the Clostridium difficile bacteria. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Interesting. CHRISTINE: It has to be soap and water so... LYNN NEARY, HOST: All right. I'm going to let - we'll going to run out of time, so I'm going to ask Rob Stein to respond to the point that you're making, Christine. Thanks very much for calling in. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Yeah. It really does - it illustrates really how tough a problem this is. I mean we sort of say, oh, hospitals ought to do a better job of controlling these infections, and they do, but it's tough. And so really, no one step is going to prevent these infections from emerging or spreading. But it is clear that if you combine all of these steps, you combine testing people, with isolating people, with sterilizing equipment that they come in contact with, making sure that staff are taking steps, that does seem to be effective and can halt the infections from - outbreaks from spreading even further. LYNN NEARY, HOST: That was NPR's Rob Stein, correspondent and senior editor on our science desk. Thanks for being with us. ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Oh, thanks for having me. LYNN NEARY, HOST: And we were also joined by Carl Zimmer, a science writer and blogger, especially regarding the study of evolution and parasites. Thanks to you, Carl. CARL ZIMMER: Thank you. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Up next, Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z on the Senate floor, sort of. Ken Rudin joins us to talk about filibusters. I'm Lynn Neary. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, held a press conference Tuesday to announce the need to "sound an alarm" on the advance of CRE, a highly drug-resistant bacteria. CRE and other superbugs are found mostly in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Rob Stein, health correspondent and senior editor, NPR Carl Zimmer, science writer and blogger

Dr. Thomas Frieden, Direktor der Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Zentren für Krankheitskontrolle und -prävention), gab am Dienstag auf einer Pressekonferenz bekannt, dass wegen des Vormarschs von CRE, einem hochgradig arzneimittelresistenten Bakterium, \"Alarm geschlagen werden muss\". CRE und andere Superbakterien treten vor allem in Krankenhäusern und Langzeitpflegeeinrichtungen auf. Rob Stein, Gesundheitskorrespondent und leitender Redakteur, NPR\nCarl Zimmer, Wissenschaftsautor und Blogger

美国疾病控制与预防中心主任托马斯·弗里登博士周二召开新闻发布会，宣布有必要对CRE（抗碳青霉烯类肠杆菌）这种高度耐药细菌的扩散“敲响警钟”。CRE和其他超级细菌大多存在于医院和长期护理机构。罗伯·斯坦，美国国家公共广播电台健康通讯员兼高级编辑，卡尔·齐默，科学作家兼博主

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It is part of a president's job to console after tragedy; today President Trump will try to do that. He is visiting two communities recovering from mass shootings. First, he's going to Dayton, Ohio; that's where nine people were shot dead by a gunman early Sunday. Then he goes to El Paso Texas, where 22 people were killed when a shooter opened fire in a Walmart. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And I got to say, Rachel, his presence here in El Paso is controversial. There are some in the city who just don't think Trump should come, and that includes Democratic Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, who represents this area. She was speaking to MSNBC. VERONICA ESCOBAR: Words have consequences, and the president has made my community and my people the enemy. He has told the country that we are people to be feared, people to be hated. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And we should say, Rachel, this visit is happening as many of the survivors in El Paso are still in the hospital and victims' families, as you can imagine, are still in shock. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. And so you got a really close, intimate look at the pain that these families are experiencing, right? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah, we paid a visit - yesterday we were at this auto body shop a couple of miles from here in downtown. We were meeting Tito Anchondo. He lost two family members at that Walmart, both his brother Andre and Andre's wife Jordan. Their 2-month-old baby was with him at the Walmart. He survived. When I met Tito yesterday, he was actually working on cars at the shop. It's only been three days, but he said the family just can't afford to close the business. TITO ANCHONDO: I mean, we'd like to stop. We'd like a moment. But for somebody who's, you know, self-employed like myself and my dad, it's - there's no possibility. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I wonder if it's also about just, you know, staying busy, distracting yourself from the grief. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah. I mean, I wondered the same thing. I mean, this family's totally broken. Tito, you know, is trying to stay strong and hold it together. But one thing he told me is that he can't even spend time with his mother right now because he's so worried that it might upset her. TITO ANCHONDO: I don't even want to go and see her because everybody keeps telling me that I look like - just like my brother. And I don't want her to even look at me 'cause I don't want her to remember my brother's face when - it's tough, guys. It's really, really tough. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And Rachel, you understand this. I went into this conversation thinking I wasn't going to bring up politics with this family at all. It just felt insensitive. But then Tito, pretty early on, told me that he's really happy that President Trump is coming here. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How come? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, I mean, he said his late brother supported the president. He said he supports the president, but that he's really grappled a lot with some of the racist things that President Trump has said. And he's hoping to get some face time with the president to challenge him on some of that. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So, I mean, what are we expecting from Trump's visit there? Any idea what he's going to say, who he's going to meet? DAVID GREENE, HOST: I mean, you think about some of the things that the president has said in the past - I think when he meets with city officials, if he meets with victims, we'll have to see if those things come up. He's tweeted things about the city of El Paso. He also mischaracterized the crime rate in the city, back in the State of the Union address when he suggested it had been one of America's most dangerous cities. He's called migrants from Mexico, some of them, rapists. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And yet I remember from my days covering the White House, there's still always something about the institution of the presidency. I mean, people who have gone through crisis, who are grieving, many of them just crave some sort of soothing from a president, and President Trump has struggled to fulfill that role in the past, and he certainly has an immense test, I think, today. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. David, thanks to you and your team for all the reporting from El Paso this week. We appreciate it. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah, of course. STEWART EISENBERG: There is a crisis in the Boy Scouts, and there has been for many years, many decades. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That's the voice of Stewart Eisenberg. He's the lead attorney in a new lawsuit that was filed in Pennsylvania this week, and it alleges that the Boy Scouts of America continues to cover up a, quote, "pedophilia epidemic within the organization." The lawyers say they've identified 350 previously unknown scoutmasters who they allege preyed on boys. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Nick Pugliese is covering the story for NPR's member station WHYY and joins us now. Nick, so the lawsuit focuses on a plaintiff identified only by the initials S.D. What stands out in terms of the allegation that he's brought forward? NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: You know, the first thing that stands out to me is the activities that make the Boy Scouts enjoyable for so many kids, like the overnight trips in the woods away from parents, is also what made the boy in this case so susceptible to abuse. And some of the allegations in this lawsuit are just horrific, and at the same time they have a lot in common with so many other cases that have come out of the Scouts or out of the Catholic Church, for that matter - like the grooming by the scout leader, the fact that the boy apparently grew up without a father and looked to the Boy Scouts for that guidance. NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: So I've covered more of these cases than I would have liked to at this point, and it's still difficult to fathom how a lot of this abuse followed similar patterns, and yet it was apparently able to go on for so long and on such a broad scale. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. But we've heard of these kinds of allegations within the Scouts for a long time. What makes this lawsuit unique? NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: So the attorney representing the Pennsylvania boy and some other lawyers have been running an outreach campaign on TV. They now say they've signed up almost 800 new clients, which, as you said, includes allegations against 350 scout leaders who weren't previously named in internal Boy Scout records. So it seems like the... RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: (Inaudible) ...The scope. NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: The scope of it, I don't think they've quite wrapped their heads around it yet. And the second thing is something that Marci Hamilton mentioned to me this week. She's the head of an advocacy group called Child USA. MARCI HAMILTON: We're finally shifting the power over to victims so the victims are able to go to court, to get discovery and to show the world the truth. NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: What she's talking about there is there's states like New York and New Jersey that recently passed laws that will make it easier for victims to bring sex abuse lawsuits, and other states are now considering similar steps. So the legal landscape is shifting in some places, and it could expose the Boy Scouts and other groups to more lawsuits than ever before. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Are the Boy Scouts responding to this latest suit? I mean is there a sense that they're going to take these allegations any more seriously than they've done in the past? NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: I reached out to the Boy Scouts, of course, and the first thing they said is, yet again, they apologize to anyone who was hurt, and they admitted they didn't always do enough in the past to protect their Scouts. They talked about the protections they have in place now, like criminal background checks for leaders. And they also said the group of attorneys I mentioned before actually shared some of the new allegations with them, and based on that, they've made 120 referrals to law enforcement agencies. So they do seem to have investigated some of the new names that they got pretty quickly. NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: I just want to briefly mention one other dynamic in play here, and that's the reports that surfaced last year that the Boy Scouts are considering filing for bankruptcy. If that happens, it could make it even harder for victims to file lawsuits and eventually win damages. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: WHYY reporter Nick Pugliese. Thank you so much. NICK PUGLIESE, BYLINE: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right, we're going to turn next to China because mainland China, the government there, has issued this very ominous warning to protesters in Hong Kong. The message from a government spokesperson in Beijing yesterday was, quote, "those who play with fire will perish by it." That warning followed even more demonstrations in Hong Kong on Monday. Protesters there barricaded roads. They took over police stations. And there was a general strike that basically brought the city to a standstill. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Beijing correspondent Emily Feng is with us to talk about all of these developments. Hey, Emily. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Hi. Good morning. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So tell us more about this warning issued by Beijing. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: It's very strong. Beijing's top office for Hong Kong affairs said Beijing has tremendous power to counter protests, and they put part of the blame on meddling from foreign external forces, by which they mean the United States. Then again, they had another press office (ph) today in the southern city of Shenzhen, which is this mainland city that borders Hong Kong, and they said that if the situation deteriorates beyond control, quote, "China's central government will not sit idly by." So these are very stark warnings. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: But also, keep in mind these comments are being broadcast widely in mainland China in addition to Hong Kong, so the audience is not just the protesters in Hong Kong; it's people in China, and it's to reassure them that Beijing is still in control and make sure that they have the State narrative about what's happening. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But it's so interesting because that's what the Hong Kong protesters are out on the streets against, is China's influence. And here's China just overtly making clear that they do have the power to crack down. I mean, is this moving towards the possibility of military intervention? EMILY FENG, BYLINE: That's still unlikely right now, and that's unlikely because Hong Kong is valued as an international financial hub, and if there is a likely bloody military crackdown that's led by China, that means that that status would be destroyed - all these multinational companies would move away, financial institutions would leave. But at the same time, Beijing's facing this deadline, October 1, and that's when the People's Republic of China celebrates its 70th birthday, and it would be really embarrassing if there are still protests against Beijing's rule happening in Hong Kong. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: So Beijing is probably going to turn to other methods that are optically - sorry - optically a little bit better. They said yesterday at the press conference that they were going to call on loyal Beijingers - sorry - loyal Hongkongers to stand up and firmly protect their homeland. And what that means is we could probably reasonably expect to see more pro-Beijing counterprotesters in Hong Kong doing things like raising the Chinese flag, singing the national anthem and maybe even more of those mysterious, white-shirted, masked thugs that are beating protesters up at rallies. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. We saw that happen on a subway platform. I mean, that doesn't sound good for Hong Kong. I mean, despite these warnings, is there any suggestion that the protesters in Hong Kong are going to start to stay home? EMILY FENG, BYLINE: No. If anything, they're more inflamed by these warnings, and there are protests planned for this weekend. They're demanding universal suffrage for their - a new leader, an independent investigation into police brutality, an end to an extradition bill. And these warnings talk right past those demands. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. NPR's Emily Feng in Beijing. Emily, thanks we appreciate it. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: My pleasure.

We talk with the family of El Paso shooting victims and look at President Trump's plans to visit the city. Also, details on a lawsuit alleging sex abuse in the Boy Scouts and news from Hong Kong.

Wir sprechen mit der Familie der Opfer von El Paso und schauen uns die Pläne von Präsident Trump an, die Stadt zu besuchen. Außerdem Details zu einer Klage wegen angeblichen sexuellen Missbrauchs bei den Pfadfindern und Nachrichten aus Hongkong.

我们与埃尔帕索枪击案受害者的家属交谈，了解特朗普总统访问该市的计划。此外，一个诉讼的细节指控童子军和香港的新闻中的性虐待。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Major League Baseball is on track to set a record for home runs in a season, but the games are taking as long as ever. Sports commentator Mike Pesca says if baseball doesn't get a little more sprightly, it could start losing some audience. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: The following parts of a baseball game are boring - pitching changes, stepping out of the batter's box, stepping off the pitching rubber, looking the runner back, adjusting the equipment, most foul balls called strikes not resulting in a strikeout and balls not resulting in a walk. You can find a baseball purist to argue that called balls and strikes aren't boring, but you know how I'd describe that conversation? Boring. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: Now, I just described most of a baseball game as being boring, which leads me to believe that baseball is mostly boring. I love it, but it is. To work your way around this fact demands you use words like contemplative, pastoral or timeless, but it's not timeless. A poet or documentarian may wish to convince you that the clock of a baseball game is something like three outs per inning, but look up there on the scoreboard or on your wrist or on the phone in your pocket. There is an actual clock. And guess what. Major League Baseball games are taking more time than they ever have. Three hours eight minutes - that's 13 minutes longer than "The Godfather." Of the 28 shows on Broadway right now, none runs longer than three hours. Of all the videos on Snapchat - yeah, never mind on that one. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: Well, you might say, what if baseball is dazzling customers with exciting plays and scintillating feats of heroism between the pitcher stepping off the rubber and batter stepping out of the box? What if this time is well spent on the most exciting play in the game? Here's the really scary thing for baseball. It is. The home run, decidedly not on the boring list, is ascendant. More than ascendant, it's out of here. Baseball is on a pace to set a record for home runs by a lot. But this is not delighting and captivating fans. Attendance is on a pace to be the lowest in the last 15 years. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: Baseball knows it's lagging. The league has tried to nibble off a few seconds of downtime here and there by, say, lopping off five seconds between innings. They've changed the rule so that an intentional walk needn't require four actual pitches outside the strike zone. That laudable tinkering has been largely counteracted by the emerging trend of baseball teams no longer issuing intentional walks. Oh, well. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: The league has done nothing to dissuade players from languidly wandering in and out of the batter's box like 5-year-olds examining shells at the beach. But mostly blame goes to the trend of every at-bat requiring so many pitches to get a result - ball, adjust gloves, strike, step off the rubber, ball, adjust gloves, look runner over, look runner over. At this point, Snapchat is looking good. The other huge problem for the game, one that is out of step with our celebrity culture, is that it's very hard to follow individual players. If a football fan loves a quarterback, he handles the ball in every offensive snap. Watching a great NBA player even without the ball, Steph Curry as he curls around the screen, is a thing to behold. But if you're there to watch a particular player, realize 17 out of every 18 batters aren't him. MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: Baseball still has a wonderful sense of history. There is so much intricacy and skill to mastering a knuckle curve or turning a double play. Ballparks have more personality than ever, and generations can bond over the shared love of team. But if the game itself doesn't realize that it is in - I'll say it - a crisis of boredom, then we may lose an entire generation of fans. And that lost generation will be the last. DAVID GREENE, HOST: He's never boring. Commentator Mike Pesca hosts the Slate podcast "The Gist."

Sports commentator Mike Pesca wonders whether Major League Baseball will modernize to attract a young audience, and how it will keep them for life.

Sportkommentator Mike Pesca fragt sich, ob sich die Major League Baseball modernisieren wird, um ein junges Publikum anzuziehen, und wie es sie ein Leben lang behalten wird.

体育评论员迈克·佩斯卡想知道美国职业棒球大联盟是否会通过现代化来吸引年轻观众，以及它将如何留住他们。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: American writer Toni Morrison died on Monday. She was 88 years old. Morrison's work explored the African American experience and the open wounds of racism in this country. Here she was speaking on CBS. TONI MORRISON: What are you without racism? Are you any good? Are you still strong, still smart, you still like yourself? I mean, these are the questions. It's - part of it is, yes, the victim, how terrible it is for black people. CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, but you don't like that (ph). TONI MORRISON: I'm not a victim. I refuse to be one. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah profiled Toni Morrison in 2015 for New York Times Magazine. And I sat down with her to talk about Toni Morrison's legacy and what the writer meant to her personally. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: For me and for so many people, Toni Morrison is one of the most towering figures in American literature. And that's not an overstatement. I mean, to say that she's iconic, to say that she's vanguard, to say that she's bold is to only tap slightly towards her presence as an absolute genius. When Toni Morrison wrote "Song Of Solomon" and "Sula" and "Jazz" and all of her novels, what she really did is show the world that black America had an interiority. And what she did in her capturing of all those details is that she really gave us a record of gesture (ph) and custom and being and belonging that I think wouldn't have been explicated in that way without her writing. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: How did she permeate the culture as a writer? Because it was a long time coming. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: I mean, Morrison publishes her first work at 39. And before then, she had been working at Random House, where she had published books by Muhammad Ali, Henry Dumas, Angela Davis, Huey P. Newton, Toni Cade Bambara and Gail Jones. And one of the things that she keeps saying as she's working with Gail Jones' manuscript is that no other novel about a black woman will ever be the same after this. And I think that in some ways she's almost presaging her own work. After we start to read Morrison, I think we all got a sense of just how good our language was, just how powerful black vernacular was. And until she did what she did, I don't think that we really had a testament to that. And in changing the world, I think she changed the world just by being so genius. And after that, you couldn't come to the table with anything less than what she was offering because she became the standard. She's the metric. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And yet the establishment was reticent to acknowledge her greatness. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: Always. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Can you talk about this letter? RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: So in 1988, a group of black authors, thinkers, 48 of them published and signed a statement in The New York Times. And basically, what they were doing was upbraiding the publishing industry for what they called the oversight and harmful whimsy towards Morrison and James Baldwin. They were particularly upset that after five novels that we now look back on as being seminal moments in American literature, Toni Morrison had yet to win a National Book Award or a Pulitzer Prize. It was very important to them that they recognized her. And two months later, what happened is that Toni Morrison was awarded the Pulitzer for "Beloved." I think what we know that "Beloved" does is that for the first time we got to hear a black woman talking about the experience of slavery as something that happened to the body but also something that haunted us forever. And I think what they were basically demanding is that she could no longer be rendered invisible. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mentioned that you profiled her for the Times Magazine. You describe her as one of your own literary heroes. How did you first find your way to her writing? RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: I think so much of Morrison is about transgression. The first time I found Morrison's writing was because I was a voracious reader after I learned to read. And so I was actually going through my mother's books, and I was reading things like "Madame Bovary" and anything I could get my hands on - the more salacious sort of the better. And I stumbled across "Jazz," and I'll never forget that she begins that book with the sound of someone clicking their teeth, and I said, what is this? And I was talking to a friend this morning, and she said, thank you, Toni Morrison, for all the work we've read that we didn't understand, but we understood before we knew what she was saying. And I think when I read "Jazz," I understood all of the womanhood in that story. I understood all of the violence in that story. And I understood all of the sexuality in that story. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: And what Morrison did is that she made it very, very real. She also made it accessible. So Morrison could make these spaces that would seem sort of looming and heavy and grim very, very, very, very, very viable. I thought this morning of something Chekhov says. Chekhov writes about Masha in "The Seagull" of that I'm in mourning for my life. And I think - when I think about the loss of Toni Morrison, I feel like I'm in mourning for my life because she gave me the world. She gave me the universe. And I think she did that for a lot of us. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: What do you remember most about the time you got to spend with her for the profile? RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: The thing I remember most and the thing I would like to mention is that I'm thinking of her granddaughters. I'm thinking of her sons. I'm thinking of her as a real woman, not just this author. I'm thinking of all the people who loved her, her editor, Erroll McDonald. I'm thinking of them because Morrison was so incredibly generous, and she was never not telling stories. And I imagine that that absence is going to weigh on them very heavily as time passes. And I think all of us will think that we've lost someone that she's no longer with us. But I think what Morrison did is that she left us these words, and these words will stay with us forever. And thank God for that. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Losing her is a profound thing and would be at any time. And it feels - the wound feels deeper right now because of where America is at and because of the truth that she was able to illuminate about racism in this country. What do you want people to glean from her work in this moment? Why do you think that losing her now is such a wound? RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: One of my favorite things that Morrison said is that we don't need any more writers as solitary heroes. We need a heroic writers movement - assertive, militant and pugnacious. And I think losing Morrison now, we lose a sort of role model for being bold, for being dynamic and for knowing that the language can be political, that the language is necessary and that the language is freedom. And I think that as we go forward as writers and thinkers and intellectual, the thing that we have to do is to speak with clarity and not let anyone sanitize our voices and our thoughts but also to have the freedom to say this space right here is mine. And this writing is where I'm free, and no one can tell me what to be. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: And I think when I think about how to be like Morrison or how to honor her, I think the thing I want to do most is to continue to write unassimilated black literature that lifts up the love for the people, the love for the culture, the love for the resistance that we embody in this country as a historical project. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah remembering the life of Toni Morrison. Thank you so much. RACHEL KAADZI GHANSAH: Thank you.

NPR's Rachel Martin talks to essayist Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah about the legacy of American author Toni Morrison, who died Monday at the age of 88.

Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit der Essayistin Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah über das Erbe des amerikanischen Autors Toni Morrison, der am Montag im Alter von 88 Jahren starb.

NPR新闻记者瑞秋·马丁与散文家瑞秋·卡兹·甘萨谈论美国作家托尼·莫里森的遗产，她于周一去世，享年 88 岁。

JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Jennifer Ludden. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, the Opinion Page. It's a no-brainer, that's how secretary - former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich described President Obama's recent proposal to raise the federal minimum wage. The plan would boost minimum pay from 7.25 an hour to $9. In a syndicated column, Reich wrote, a mere $9 an hour translates into about $18,000 a year, still under the poverty line. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We'd like to hear from business owners today. What would a $9 minimum wage meant for your company? We're at 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. Robert Reich served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. He's now professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley and joins us from a studio there. Welcome back to the program. ROBERT REICH: Hi, Jennifer. How are you? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Good. So as you - you'll not be surprise to know not everyone agrees with you on the minimum wage. It's often called a job killer if it were to be increased to $9 an hour. What do you say to that? ROBERT REICH: Well, I know that's how a lot of people view it and particularly business people. And that's been their argument every time the minimum wage has been raised. It has been raised consistently, and it has never actually killed jobs. In fact, there has been no relationship between raising the minimum wage and losing jobs. ROBERT REICH: I remember in 1996, when I was Bill Clinton's secretary of labor, we raised it over the objections of the business community. They said it would be a job killer. We - and instead of killing jobs, actually, we saw a huge increase in the number of jobs. I'm not saying the minimum wage will increase jobs. It's just that, particularly in this environment where you've got so many people who are scraping by, barely able to make it, it is not only economically appropriate but is - it is morally just to do it. We shouldn't have a lot of people who are working below the poverty level full time. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: But '96, you know, that was a different economy than we have today. I mean, some small employers say they are scraping by. You know, there's high unemployment, low inflation. Some people say, well, it might be a good idea, but this just isn't the right time. Couldn't some employers be hurt more now if this were to happen than any other... ROBERT REICH: Well, at least - I've heard that too. The answer to them is that when we're talking about very low-wage workers, we're talking about people who are working in restaurants, hotels, hospitals, low-wage jobs that basically are not competing directly with international competitions. Certainly, these jobs are not going to be offshore, the outsourced. They're not even going to be replaced by machines or automated equipment because they have to involve - they involve personal service. And what we see whether the economy is good or bad and - again, we're talking about a very long history, lot of research since the minimum wage was initiated in the 1930s, good economies and bad. What we see is that, basically, small businesses and all businesses tend to simply pass on the wage increase to consumers in the form of very, very small increases, penny increases in prices. ROBERT REICH: What's good for the economy, though, is that more people will have a chance because they are earning a little bit more to turn around and buy things. And one of the problems the economy now has, particularly now and in every instance where you have a kind of economic downturn, you don't have enough purchasing power. People simply don't have enough money in their pockets. And so the minimum wage increase would put a little bit more money into the pockets of about 15 million Americans who now work between - who are working now at $7 and $25, 25 - $7.25 an hour. And they would see a raise. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Well, let's bring a business person into the conversation. Colleen in Stamford, Connecticut. Welcome to TALK OF THE NATION. COLLEEN: Hi. How are you? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Good. COLLEEN: I own a small business, and my problem with raising of the minimum wage, I'm going to have to pass that cost onto my clients. I'm a one-person business with a couple of high school kids, and the second I have to pay them more money, I have to get that from somewhere. So I'm going to have to pass that onto the client. But the cost of living being what it is, it's only going to increase. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Can I ask what your product is? COLLEEN: I'm a dog groomer. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Oh, a dog groomer. So how much then would people have to pay for - would it be the whole - what is it, a $1.30? See, I'm not good at math. About a dollar - a buck and a half an hour or would you only pass on part of that? What do you think? COLLEEN: The way that I do my sales tax, I build it into the price. So for me, sales tax is already going up, but now we're going to have that on top of it, so it would probably add another two to four dollars. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Do you think you'd lose customers? COLLEEN: When I went up a few dollars when we first started getting services that never had a sales tax before, when I first started applying sales tax to services, I lost a few customers then, and people are just having such a hard time that they're not grooming as frequently. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: What about the idea, Colleen, that if people got paid more, they could pay more for other goods and put it back into the economy? COLLEEN: That would be lovely. But my fear is that it's going to make the cost of everything go up, so people are going to be in the same boat. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Colleen, thanks so much for the call. COLLEEN: Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Robert Reich, what about, you know, the workers who have minimum wage jobs? We're assuming they don't have a lot of education, probably not a lot of skills. I mean, would they become less competitive for these jobs? Would we see, you know, if you have to pay more for minimum wage, maybe someone else is going to get that job. ROBERT REICH: Well, theoretically that certainly is possible, Jennifer. But we know that states that have a minimum wage closer to $9 an hour right now don't have higher rates of unemployment. They don't have more joblessness. They, in some instances, have a lower rate of unemployment than do states and municipalities that are at the federal level of just $7.25. The other thing to keep in mind is the actual value of the minimum wage has been eroding for years, adjusted for inflation. If it had stayed even with inflation since 1968, it would now be $10.56 an hour. So it's not as if we're cranking up the minimum wage higher than it ought to be or it has been in the past. Adjusted for inflation, it actually is lower than it was in the late '60s. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thirty percent lower, I think, is what I read somewhere, less buying power. ROBERT REICH: Yeah. And that less buying power, again, as with Colleen, it feels initially as if consumers might recoil, but actually consumers need more money. And if you have 15 million people who have more money in their pockets, they can become consumers as well. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Well, you mentioned if it had been keeping steady with inflation it'd be 10.50 an hour. In USA Today today, Senator Tom Harkin has an op-ed saying that he will soon propose raising it to $10 an hour. He doesn't think the $9 put out there by the president is enough. ROBERT REICH: Well, he may be right. I, you know, my personal both assessment of where the economy is and what the wage should be is that we could easily go to $10 an hour without having negative employment effects. You know, Jennifer, some opponents say that the minimum wage recipients are mostly high school kids working for extra money. That's not true. Nearly 90 percent, and this is a study that the Economic Policy Institute did last summer, showing that nearly 90 percent of the recipients of that minimum wage increase are at least 20 years old, more than half work full time, more than a quarter are parents. I mean these are working people not unlike every other working person, and they do need to - it seems to me and I think it is not just economic issue, it is a moral issue. If they're working full time, they should not be in poverty. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Let's take another phone call. Ryan is in Geneva, New York. Hi there, Ryan. RYAN: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. I'm a small business owner. It's my wife, myself, my mother and my brother, and so we're not a huge company. But I'm strongly in favor of having a strong living wage because I feel that if you're so focused on your bottom line, you will negatively impact your - the whole community that you're in. If you're employees can't afford your own product, if you're not going to generate that recurring business and the whole community suffers if everyone is looking at the bottom line; if we're willing embrace, you know, paying people a fair wage for even basic labor, there's an opportunity there. RYAN: I mean, for my guys, I would love my guys who are working, you know, $10 an hour jobs, $12 an hour jobs, to one day be able to afford my product. And I believe they can if we focus on building up the community economically, not just one(ph) little section of it. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So did you just say you pay your workers 10, 12 dollars an hour, along that? RYAN: Yeah. I won't pay any of my workers less than $12 an hour. I do have seasonal employees and (unintelligible) largely just general labor. But I can't - I want people who can think for themselves. But it's still not rocket science what they do, but I find that if I pay them $12 an hour, even guys who never worked for that wage before take on (unintelligible) responsibility. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So if you're already going above and beyond the minimum wage, what difference would this make? Would it impact you at all, do you think? RYAN: I think it actually would positively impact me because I run into a lot of struggling families who - we do energy improvements to homes. And most of the time these families can't qualify for the very small loans that enable our improvements because they just don't have the income. They're struggling in service jobs and they just - they can't get a $3,000 loan to make their home more comfortable and more warm in winter. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Ryan, thanks for the call. RYAN: Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And let's go now to Phoenix, Arizona. Zoya(ph) in Phoenix, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION. ZOYA: Hello. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Go right ahead. ZOYA: I wanted to talk about the minimum wage because right now it's 7.80, a dollar in Arizona, just raised. And giving minimum wage, $9, it would be really difficult. I have a really small restaurant. I feel that I won't be able to compete with chains because being small, I can't buy anything in bulk. And then if I start paying my dishwasher $9 an hour, that means I'm going to have raise prices on all my food items. And I really don't think I can compete after that. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So even if you're paying the same to your workers as they are, there's other things at play and you just - it would be tough. ZOYA: Yeah. Because chains can pay extra while they can save from, you know, buying big, by, you know, offsetting it in other ways versus a small restaurant. I can't offset that because I don't have storage and other things and whatsoever. So that's my problem, that I wouldn't mind it, but I really wouldn't know how I would go about basing(ph) prices - 50 cents or a dollar an item. They will definitely notice. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. Zoya, thanks for the phone call. ZOYA: Thanks. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Robert Reich, what would you say to Zoya? ROBERT REICH: Well, I've heard that claim from small businesses competing with chains a lot, and we heard it in the 1990s when we were pushing for a minimum wage increase even then. One thing we discovered, and it's interesting, is that small businesses competing with chains, when they raised their wages, even are forced to raise their wages because of minimum wage increase, they are also very often, if they can't pass those costs onto consumers, they have to become more efficient. They are pushed to improve productivity, to give their workers more training, to streamline their operations, something that perhaps they should've done all along. ROBERT REICH: But this kind of makes it - it pushes them to become better. And that productivity improvement spread over the entire economy, because you've got a lot of small business that can become more productive and can train their workers better, is actually a big plus for the economy that's often not talked about when we talk about raising the minimum wage. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Let's squeeze in one more caller here. Kirk in Tulsa, Oklahoma, how are you? KIRK: I'm very well. Thanks for taking my call. One industry that's being left out here are service providers who provide home and community-based services to the elderly and to people with disabilities. We have 1,200 employees. And my average employee makes 8.50 an hour. And everything we earn is paid for through Medicaid, to the state legislators(ph). And so one of the things that happens is this increase in minimum wage to 9.50, coupled with the 96 cents(ph) an hour that's come in with the Affordable Care Act, basically means my minimum cost for employee now exceeds what I'm allowed to charge for my services. And because our rates are set through Medicaid, there's no mechanism for me to raise my rates of reimbursed, and so if both of these things happen at the same time, unless the state that we're in decides to raise rates, a whole industry gets just lasered out and disappears. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thank you so much. And Robert Reich, that is one of the fastest growing industries in the country. And we all know about budget cutting at the federal level. So it's - wouldn't that be tough... ROBERT REICH: Yes, undoubtedly it's hard. And some of those businesses that are involved in health care are getting hit with a double whammy. But by the same token, I think it's important to consider that if people are not being paid a living wage, or they're being paid under the poverty line, we all end up subsidizing them indirectly through welfare payments, through more Medicaid payments, through housing assistance. In other words, there is a public subsidy that is invisible that subsidizes the small businesses and other businesses that are paying people a wage that really keeps them in poverty. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You know, you said earlier that you don't think that raising the minimum wage to $9 will lead to more people being displaced by technology. But it's amazing the things that we hear technology may be able to do. I mean, you look at the self-pay machines (unintelligible) pharmacist. And I know all kinds of things are in the works for things maybe we can't imagine. You don't think that this would hasten that process? ROBERT REICH: I don't think it'll hasten the process because most of the incentives for employers to bring in machinery - automated machinery or digital machinery to replace workers, that only make sense economically if you're paying workers something in the order of 20, 25, $30 an hour or more. At the range of $7.25 to $9 an hour, if it goes up to $9 an hour, the minimum wage, that's not going to be enough economic incentive to pay for the cost of all that new machinery. It just doesn't make that much sense. And again, studies show that the net economic effect on the country, on the economy, of a modest increase in the minimum wage has tended to be positive because more people have more money in their pockets and they can turn around and buy. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkley. His latest book, "Beyond Outrage," is out now in paperback. He joined us today from a studio in Berkley. Thank you so much. ROBERT REICH: Well, thank you, Jennifer. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Tomorrow, Dexter Filkins joins us to talk about Hezbollah in Syria's civil war. Join us for that. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden in Washington.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a plan to boost federal minimum wage from 7.25 an hour, to 9 dollars. Columnist Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, argues that plan is "a no-brainer."

In seiner Rede zur Lage der Nation schlug Präsident Obama einen Plan vor, den bundesstaatlichen Mindestlohn von 7,25 auf 9 Dollar pro Stunde anzuheben. Kolumnist Robert Reich, Arbeitsminister unter Präsident Bill Clinton, argumentiert, dass der Plan \"ein Kinderspiel\" sei.

奥巴马总统在国情咨文中提出一项计划，将联邦最低工资从每小时7.25美元提高到9美元。专栏作家、比尔·克林顿总统的劳工部长罗伯特·赖克认为，该计划“无需动脑筋”。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. The president's putts pass the Tiger test, the Senate sex scandal that stayed secret for 30 years and Erskine Bowles reduces sequestration to three little words. It's Wednesday and time for a... ERSKINE BOWLES: Stupid, stupid, stupid... NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...edition of the Political Junkie. PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: There you go again. VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE: When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad: Where's the beef? SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN: Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore. SARAH PALIN: Lipstick. GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Oops PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: But I'm the decider. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Every Wednesday, Political Junkie Ken Rudin joins us to review the week in politics. This week, the sequestration version of the Washington blame game blossoms, the news of a congressman's daughter and a senator's son, Mark Sanford begs the public's forgiveness, Jesse Jackson Jr. pleads guilty, a scarred Chuck Hagel is set for a confirmation vote next week, and two senators set off speculation as they decline to run again. NEAL CONAN, HOST: In a bit, we'll focus on the Democrats' strategy to win the House in 2014 with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Steve Israel, and later in the program politics in Chicago, which elects Jesse Jackson Jr.'s replacement on Tuesday. NEAL CONAN, HOST: But first, Political Junkie Ken Rudin joins us, as usual, here in Studio 3A. And as usual, we begin with a trivia question. Hey Ken. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Neal, this is the first time it's the stupid, stupid, stupid edition of the Political Junkie? NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think so, the very first time. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: I'm just curious. OK, well, the outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is a former member of the House. His nominated successor, Chuck Hagel, served two terms in the Senate. The trivia question is: Who was the last defense secretary elected to public office but not to the House or Senate? NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you think you know the answer to this week's trivia question, the last secretary of defense elected to public office but who did not serve in either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Of course, the winner gets a free Political Junkie T-shirt and a fabulous no-prize button. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So sequester on the horizon, Ken. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, we're coming up close. It's March 1st, and the fun part is that Congress is out this week. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah, so getting a lot done this week. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: So this is really, really obviously on their minds and a major thing. And, of course, we always talk about Henny Penny, the sky is falling, until there's a last-minute deal. But right now nobody's talking about a late-minute deal, last-minute deal. Everybody's talking about: Who should we blame? Is it the Democrats' fault? Is it Obama's fault? Is it the Republicans' fault? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But nobody's getting anything done. So as it turns out, if everything goes the way it's going the way it's going right now, March 1st, it will be the beginning of these just huge cuts in the Pentagon, in domestic spending and things like that. And some Republicans, and I think some Democrats say look, let it happen, and, you know, finally maybe Washington will wake up to the, you know, to the things that need to be done. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And at least, still, they'll be saving some - that cut money. But this - the fiscal cliff was the metaphor we all learned to love to hate. Now it's the meat cleaver. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Right, right, you know, I loved him on "Leave it to Beaver," that was one of the family members there. But it was just - I mean, this is exactly what everybody... NEAL CONAN, HOST: That was their first album, "Meet the Cleavers." KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: "Soul on Ice," I think it was. But it was the kind of thing that we keep seeing over and over again in Washington, that everybody says oh no, this is really, this time it's really going to be terrible. And then ultimately somebody says, well, how about we can push it off for six months. And I bet you that happens. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, then speaking of things that happen all the time in Washington, here's something that never happened before, a filibuster on a secretary of defense, the aforementioned Chuck Hagel. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, of course, the Republicans will tell you it's not a filibuster, but it is a filibuster, of course. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If it walks like a filibuster... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Exactly. And they tried to get 60 votes. And they only failed by one. It was - the vote was 58 to 40, but of course Harry Reid switched votes so he could have a revote. Two Republicans who have been fighting Chuck Hagel all along, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, both of whom of course supported the delay in the Hagel vote, said over the weekend... NEAL CONAN, HOST: They supported Tom DeLay, too. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: They did, and where is he now? They said - they both say that OK, we had our fun, we're no longer going to hold up the nomination. And when the Senate vote comes back - when the Senate comes back to vote on February 26th, everybody knows that this non-filibuster filibuster will be over, and Hagel will get confirmed. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We expect, more or less, on party lines with one exception, and that is a senator from Nebraska. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, two exceptions, right. I mean, the only Republicans so far who have come out in favor of him of course is Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Mike Johanns, the Republican senator from Nebraska, where - the same state where Chuck Hagel happened to - once been a Republican senator. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But anyway, the news of the day was, of course, on Monday, Mike Johanns surprised everybody and said he would not run for a second term. He says he wants to spend more time with General Petraeus' family - no, he didn't say that. But he just said that, you know, he doesn't want to run again. And everybody was shocked, and you just wonder if part of the frustration with what's going on with Chuck Hagel was part of his decision-making. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Of course he was also a member of the Gang of Eight working on deficit reduction that went nowhere. So Mike Johanns has talked about frustration in the past, and perhaps that's one of the reasons. But not running for second term when there was no Democrat on the horizon to challenge him was a surprise. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so the scramble is off to find somebody who might replace him on the Republican side, it's a very red state, occasionally they do elect a Democrat, but a very red state. So you'd have to think that would stay in Republican hands. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Also a switch in New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, the oldest member of the United States Senate, everyone thought he would probably decide not to run again. Well, then the mayor of Newark sort of got out of line, at least according to Frank Lautenberg, and there was talk that maybe he would run again. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: That's exactly right. I mean, last week Lautenberg did announce that he would not run. You say he is the oldest. He is 89 years old, the oldest member of the Senate, also the last remaining World War II veteran in the U.S. Senate. He probably would've loved to have gone out on his own. He resented the fact that Cory Booker had the temerity - the mayor of Newark - who's 43 years old, half his age, had the temerity to criticize Lautenberg and basically say I'm running whether Lautenberg's running or not. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Lautenberg has stepped down. I assume that most of his loyalists, his supporters, Lautenberg's loyalists, will support Frank Pallone, he's the 62-year-old member of Congress from the Jersey Shore. But right now, Cory Booker looks like - I mean, he always talks about his 1.3 million tweet followers, far more than you and I have, I think. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think just one or two. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But anyway, so it's going to be an interesting - just like Nebraska looks like a solid Republican seat, the Republicans don't look like they have a chance at all in New Jersey not having elected a Republican senator there since 1972. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the Democrat who may have had the best chance to replace Tom Harkin said he's not going to run. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, if you're talking about Tom Vilsack, the former governor, yes he said no. But of course it seems like the Democrats have united behind Bruce Braley, he's a congressman from the east, east part of Iowa. It looks like the Republicans, though, may get involved in a very tough ideological battle between the establishment backing one candidate and the conservatives backing Steve King. Tom Latham is the establishment guy, Steve King the Tea Party favorite. Republicans could be involved in a very big slugfest for that Iowa seat. NEAL CONAN, HOST: In the meantime, we have some people on the line who think they know the answer to this week's trivia question, that is the last secretary of defense to have been an elected official, but not a federally elected... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Not in the House or Senate. NEAL CONAN, HOST: 800-989-8255, email talk@npr.org. And we'll start with Julia(ph), Julia on the line with us from San Antonio. JULIA: Yeah, I think it's Gates. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob Gates, who spraddled(ph), straddled also, the terms of George W. Bush and President Obama. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yes, and you know his brother Water. No, Bob Gates actually never ran for public office. JULIA: Oh, thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much, longtime CIA employee and then later - anyway, Mark(ph) is on the line, Mark with us from Reno. MARK: How about McNamara? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Robert McNamara, whose middle name is Strange, I don't know if everybody knows that, but Robert McNamara also never ran for public office. He was, of course, the defense secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And ran Ford before that. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: That's right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, thanks very much, Mark. MARK: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can go next to - this is Peter(ph), Peter with us from Lansdowne in Pennsylvania. PETER: Yes, is it Donald Regan? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Donald Regan, who was - well actually, Donald Regan was never secretary of defense. PETER: He was treasury. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: He was chief of staff, and he was treasury secretary, also never ran for office. He was Reagan's - in the Reagan administration. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And he wanted to buy a vowel, but anyway, let's go next to Marty, and Marty with us from Kailua-Kona in Hawaii. MARTY: I'm going to try Caspar Weinberger. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: That is the correct answer. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ding, ding, ding. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Caspar the Friendly Weinberger was secretary of defense... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Cap the Knife as he was known. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yes, Cap the Knife because of the budget cuts. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Wait a minute, we have two winners, this is an email from Nan Walsh(ph), she also got Cap Weinberger. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But let's not forget Marty, he's hanging on here. OK, but anyway, he was a California state assemblyman in the 1950s and then ran for attorney general and then became involved in the Reagan campaigns. But Caspar Weinberger is the correct answer. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So Marty, stay on the line, and we will collect your particulars and send you off a Political Junkie T-shirt, and of course the fabulous no-prize Political Junkie button, and that's in return for a promise to send us a digital picture of yourself wearing same so we can post it on our wall of shame. MARTY: (Unintelligible). NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, congratulations. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Don't you think that wearing that shirt in Hawaii makes Hawaii even more beautiful of a state? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Even more attractive, yeah in fact I'm going to be visiting him not too far down the road. Anyway... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Bring me, bring me. Pick me. Pick me. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is - speaking of Donald Regan and the Reagan administration, the biggest sex scandal of the Reagan administration erupted today. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Of the Reagan administration. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yes, this is Pete Domenici. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: This was a shocker. I mean, it turned out that Pete Domenici, who is 80 years old, he left the Senate, didn't run for re-election to his seventh term in 2008, he disclosed that he - 30 years ago, he fathered a son with Michelle Laxalt, who is the daughter of former senator, Nevada Senator Paul Laxalt. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Talk - I mean, what's ironic, and of course they kept this quiet for all these years, obviously for obvious reasons, the reason both Domenici and Michelle Laxalt came forward is apparently somebody was going to run with the story. Pete Domenici was always known as Saint Pete when he was senator from New Mexico - always, you know, everybody loved him, very, very popular. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: There was - it was - I don't know what it means, but it certainly is shocking. There is a city in New Mexico called Truth or Consequences, and I have a feeling that plays into this. But it's a really surprising thing. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This after - during the State of the Union, there was - Congressman Cohen was found to be tweeting a very attractive young lady, to the consternation of many, and then it turned out she was his daughter from a relationship that... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: This is Steve Cohen of Memphis, and yes, this is very strange. Again, nothing wrong with it, but at least - I don't think he's ever been married, and he just acknowledged it for the first time. It was pretty - apparently he only found out about his daughter a few years ago. I can't believe Political Junkie has sunk to these levels, but maybe it makes sense. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, a little bit later in the program, we're going to be talking about Chicago politics, but Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty today, his political career officially ended, and his wife's, as well. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, she pleads guilty, I think, during this show. Jesse Jackson Jr. pled guilty earlier today. It was the end of a career, and poor Illinois' Second Congressional District, the third consecutive member from that district to go down either in disgrace or embarrassment. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: But he - $750,000 of campaign funds that he used for his own personal - and this is while he was under investigation for the Blagojevich Senate seat, and the fact that he did this for years and years, and it was pretty remarkable. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken, stay with us, I know you will. After a short break, we'll be back with Congressman Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to talk strategy 2014. Stay with us. It's Wednesday, the Political Junkie day, and 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. It's Wednesday, Ken's day as we call it around here. Politcal Junkie Ken Rudin is with us, as he is every week. And Ken, ScuttleButton winner this week? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: There was absolutely. It was a lot of buttons. There were six buttons in last week's puzzle. There was a Will Wilson from Texas, Hugh Carey from New York, Abe Beam from New York, a Scrabble button that said I've got the word, George Allen from Virginia and Jim Miller from Virginia. So when you add them all up, you have: Will you be my Valentine? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yes, well, anyway, Steven Hammentree(ph) of Traverse City, Michigan, is the winner. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, he will get a free Political Junkie T-shirt and of course the fabulous no-prize button. One more thing, oh, there's a new ScuttleButton puzzle up and a column? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: There absolutely is, and the new column is about the Johanns surprise. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you can see those at npr.org/junkie. One more thing, we made a mistake during the junkie segment last week on Facebook. Phil Santamaria(ph) noted when speaking about the GOP responses to the State of the Union Address, the show played a clip from Senator Rand Paul's response on behalf of the Tea Party. Instead, the audio clip concerning the president's gun control plan was from his father, former Representative Ron Paul on the Fox Business Network. Good catch, we got it wrong. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, I'm appalled. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Just a few months out from the 2012 election, both parties are already devising strategies and raising money for the 2014 races. Representative Steve Israel is the current chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the organization that hopes to get Democrats elected to the House and hopes to get the House of Representatives to change hands in 2014. He joins us by phone from Palm Beach in Florida. Good to have you with us today. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: It's great to be with you. How are you? NEAL CONAN, HOST: And if you live in a swing district, we want to hear from you. What could make it switch parties either way come 2014? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. And Steve Israel, the last election you gained more than a million votes, more than a million votes, more that Republicans voted for - in the House races. You still couldn't control the House of Representatives. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Traditionally in midterm elections the president's party loses seats. So how do you plan to retake the House come 2014? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, actually, this past election we had a much better night than anybody anticipated. We elected 49 Democrats, new Democrats. We picked up a net of eight seats. We beat 16 Republicans, which is what the Republicans were saying they would do to us. In fact it was an inversion of that. And so we had a good night. Now we've got to do better. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: We need 17 seats to take the majority. We have four quick things that are going for us at this point. Number one, we have competitive districts. We need 17 seats. Right now we'll have about 52 in play and counting. Number two, we're running against an historically unpopular Republican Congress. There was a poll done two weeks ago that Republicans in Congress are now less popular than root canals, colonoscopies and head lice. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: I mean can you imagine a pollster listening to somebody saying if the choice were between House Republicans and a colonoscopy, I'll go with the colonoscopy? Third, we are on very strong financial footing. We out-raised the Republicans in the House this past month, 6.1 million to 4.4 million. The president is all in. He's going to help us. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: And finally, and most importantly, our priorities are in synch with America's middle class. I mean these Republicans are waging wars against each other. They're involved in a civil war. They're involved in these makeovers and fake-overs. Meanwhile, we're focused on the middle class. We're now running against a Republican Congress that is willing to risk 700,000 layoffs to protect tax loopholes for a few special interests. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is the sequester you're... REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: That is the defining issue in the upcoming campaign, and we're going to hold them accountable. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, they call it, of course, Obama's sequester, but that's another issue. And to be fair, yes, the Republicans in Congress are very unpopular. So, frankly, are the Democrats. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, there's no question that Congress is unpopular as a whole. But people are smart enough to realize who's in charge, who's passing legislation to benefit the special interests, even if it's going to cost jobs in the middle class, who is it that's blocking a vote on the Violence Against Women Act, who is it that's blocking votes to help middle-class families of four to send their kids to college. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: With leadership and with the majority comes responsibility and accountability, and we're holding them responsible and accountable. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Congressman, you made all these charges, this case, prior to the 2012 presidential election, when as you say the Democrats picked up only a net of eight seats, maybe more than most people thought, but you picked up eight seats. What changes in 2014, except we no longer have President Obama topping the Democratic ticket? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, that's actually an important change. In 2012, we were running House elections in the midst of a presidential election, very difficult to break through, as you know, Ken, in that kind of environment, where you have a presidential election that is so massive and so defining. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: We don't have that. 2012 was a referendum on President Obama versus Governor Romney. 2014 will be a referendum on Tea Party extremists in the House of Representatives. That's number one. Number two, we didn't really have much help from the president, nor should he have really helped us. He had his own re-election to care about. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: What is significantly different this time is that the president has made a very - a massive commitment to help elect House Democrats because he wants to move forward and not obstruction. And the third thing that helps us is to a certain extent the Republicans were correct in saying that redistricting fortified them. But now redistricting will begin to swing the other way. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: There are still two states that will be redistricted: Florida and Texas. And in both cases we believe that as a result of the demographics, redistricting will favor us, hurt Republicans, and so the redistricting that they crowed about in 2012 will now work against them in 2014. That's just three significant changes in the environment. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Congressman, you know the history of the so-called six-year itch; in the sixth year of a presidential term they always lose seats. Of course they didn't with Bill Clinton. But you need 17 seats to take, you know, take over a majority. Do you think you can do it in the sixth year of a Democratic presidency? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Yes, we can. I'm not prepared to - you know, on this day, at this time to promise you that we're going to win the 17 seats. I will promise you that we have an aggressive, proactive plan that if executed can get us to 17 seats. About a year from now I'll be in a better position to close in on exactly how many seats we forecast winning. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: But on this six-year itch, it is one of the most overrated myths in recent politics. It is true that for a good part of American history there was a six-year itch. But you know, politics is so different now, and technologies are so different, and communications are so different that presidential history doesn't really have much bearing on today's environment. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: So in fact Bill Clinton, while, you know, he was elected in 1992 - in 1994 he actually picked - he picked up seats and then actually he... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: In '94 they lost the House. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: That's right, they lost the House in '94, but then he picked up seats in the sixth year. President Bush had a six-year itch, but he gained seats in his first midterm. So the fact of the matter is that if you take a look at recent history, there's not necessarily a six-year itch. What there is is this: A two-term president loses seats in one midterm and gains seats in another midterm. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: President Obama, he lost seats in his first midterm, and now we believe that we can pick up seats in his second midterm. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, this is not your list, but this is a list put out by the House Majority PAC, which is supporting Democratic House candidates. They've named 10 Republican targets. I wonder if you would agree with them: Michele Bachmann of Minnesota? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Yeah, well, I'll tell you, Michele Bachmann had a very, very close election. You know, she was so focused on her own career and fell so far out of touch with her own constituents that she just narrowly won that race, and I think she's going to have a similarly very close experience. We think that we can defeat her in 2014. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mike Coffman in Colorado? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Mike Coffman represents - he's a Tea Party Republican. He's one of the original birthers who represents a Democratic-leaning district in Colorado. Our candidate in 2012, Joe Miklosi, fell a little short. We now have a candidate, Andrew Romanoff, an extraordinary candidate who ran statewide in Colorado before. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: He's announced. He's going to run a very robust campaign. That's going to be one of the most significant races in the country in 2014. We think we beat Coffman. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Gary Miller in California? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Gary G. Miller is an anomaly - again, a Tea Party Republican who represents a district that I believe is about a 53 to 54 percent Democratic-performing district. And we're very high on Pete Aguilar, the mayor of Redlands, who is considering running. If he runs, I think Gary G. Miller, just because that district is a Democratic-leaning district, Gary G. Miller is probably one of the most endangered and vulnerable Republicans in Congress. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Danielle(ph): I live in New York 24. We had a Republican for years, then Dan Maffei won in 2008, a Tea Party Republican won in 2010, Maffei won again in 2012. Turnout is the key to Democratic victory in this district, which includes mostly liberal Syracuse and more conservative suburbs. Would you agree with that analysis? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, I totally agree. An air war never wins an election. You win it on the ground. The president showed that an exquisite and precise ground game wins elections. I'm very happy that one of the first conversations that I had with the president on election night after he had accepted victory in Chicago, he called leader Pelosi and me to tell us that he was all in in 2014. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: And shortly after that, he sent up some of his aides, and they told us that all of that data, which is so critical, and all of that targeting we will be given access to. That's going to be hugely important. And your email correspondent is right: It's probably what won the election in the Syracuse area for Dan Maffei and defeated Tea Party Republican Ann Marie Buerkle. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in on the conversation. Justin(ph) is on the line from St. Louis. JUSTIN: Thank you so much. First time calling in and rang and got right on. Wonderful show. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thank you. JUSTIN: I really as a conservative Christian father of a 5-year-old and married, suburbs, gun owner, I couldn't see myself voting for a Republican right now if my life dependent on it. Basically, my analogy on politics right now is you run into a house that's on fire and you - because you hear a baby crying and you see the baby in the basinet, and the father and mother of the child are in the kitchen arguing over whose turn is it to take the trash out, it's like, you know, I don't know if I have time to slap both the parents, but I'm definitely getting the baby, getting out of the house. JUSTIN: You know, if I said I don't like the CEO or the president of my company, so I'm not going to do my job for five years, six years, whatever, I wouldn't have a job. And so I think they're just - somebody needs to just compromise, and that's what it comes down to. We need to work together. Otherwise, the baby is going to die, and the house is going to burn down, you know? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Justin, thanks very much for the most extended metaphor we've heard on the program for quite some time, but thanks very much for the conversation. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: But Justin is absolutely right. You know, it may sound strange coming from the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But, you know what, guys, you know what America needs right now? It needs a Republican Party again. A Republican Party that is willing to compromise, a Republican Party that understands that they're not going to have it their way all the time. We have this thing coming up, you know, sequestration. Not every American knows what that means. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: But the fact of the matter is that on March 1st, there will be another fiscal cliff. The government will go through these savage cutbacks. Seven hundred thousand people will lose their jobs. And it doesn't have to be that way. I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. You want people in Congress who are willing not to blame each other for how sequestration was conceived, but what you're going to do to stop it. And House Democrats have put forth compromise after compromise after compromise. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: What we need is Republicans in Congress who are willing to negotiate with us rather than saying we will risk 700,000 jobs unless we get everything our way. That's not good politics, and it's not good policy. We need a Congress that is willing to compromise again. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Steve Israel is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Also with us, it's Wednesday, of course, is Ken Rudin, our Political Junkie. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Congressman, of course, you're talking about the Republicans who won't necessarily want to compromise with Democrats. You also know that they also have the so-called the Tea Party challenges back home that if you talk to Democrats, you risk getting hit with a primary from the right back home. So, of course, they have that balancing act as well. But let me ask you one thing. For the longest time that we always talk about how these guys always get re-elected and everything - nothing changes, and everybody gets re-elected. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Then we saw in 2006 and 2008, Democrats, you know, got huge gains. Nancy Pelosi became the speaker, great dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. Two years later, the exact opposite happened, and there was great dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. What - how do you - what do you do to keep the ship from going back and forth so drastically, so radically every two years? REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: That's a great question. I think what you have to do is continue two things. Number one, you've got to continue to advocate policies that are resonant with middle-class Americans. You're not - we're not going to win the majority by shifting too far to the left or too far to the right. We're going to win the majority by making sense to independent voters, mostly in suburban districts and ex-urban districts throughout the country. And so we're going to continue to advocate those policies. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: The second thing you have to do is to continue to offer a basic and fundamental choice. You know, silence doesn't win elections, and so we've got to be very aggressive in our messaging to voters that this is a referendum between kind of a Tea Party extremism and, you know, moderate sensibilities that Democrats offer. If we do those two things, I think we attract those voters that we need to win who don't necessarily wake up every morning thinking about left or right but wake up every morning thinking about forward. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: If we have a message and a ground game that resonates with those voters who are thinking about moving the country forward, we can withstand any national environment, and we can go ahead and pick up those 17 seats. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll let you go in just a second. But before 2014, of course, you've got a couple of races coming up very quickly, one of them next week. I would think you would expect that the district that's up in Illinois would stay in Democratic hands. The one in South Carolina would stay in Republican hands. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Well, I'll tell you the one in Illinois I'm very comfortable, very confident. I'll sign an affidavit now that we'll keep that seat. That's Jesse Jackson's former seat. And the one in South Carolina could get interesting. I mean you've got some bizarre concentration of candidates, including the former governor who had some very significant issues when he was governor. And that one could get interesting. I'm not ready to concede that one, although I am ready to declare victory in Illinois. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Congressman, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE ISRAEL: Thanks, guys. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Of course, we'll have the Republican campaign - Congressional Campaign Committee chair on as well to explain why just exactly the opposite is going to happen. But Steve Israel joining us from Florida. Ken, a couple of things we did not get to that race - we're going to be talking more about the Jesse Jackson Jr. race. But in South Carolina, Mark Sanford is winning over some supporters. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Well, there are a lot of conservatives who you think that because of a pro-family views and things like that and family values, Mark Sanford would not be the kind of candidate they would endorse, but there are a lot - a bunch of people - Erick Erickson of Red State - I think National Review has also come up and said that, look, he was a very conservative advocate when he was in Congress. He was a very conservative governor. And whatever his failure as a human being, as a father, which he acknowledged - has acknowledged, said he deserves another shot in Congress. So you're going to have a run-off, you're going to have a primary, not a run-off, but there are a lot of conservatives coming out in favor of Mark Sanford. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there's a clip of tape we just have to play. This is in an online chat this week. Vice President Joe Biden explaining that some guns are easier to control than others. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: You don't need AR-15. It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun. NEAL CONAN, HOST: As he told his wife, Jill, to do. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yeah. Yes. I think that was a - that explains the marriage. But anybody... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: The thought of Joe Biden, who's in charge of this group, basically to come out with a sensible solution to gun violence, to advocate buying a shotgun, of course, it sounds like we're taking it out of context. But it was a bizarre piece of tape they listened to. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You've got to love the vice president. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Stay with us. When we come back from a short break, we're going to be talking with Don Rose about Chicago politics, not just the Jesse Jackson Jr. seat, which Steve Israel already has claimed victory for, but who will claim it. Stay with us. We're going to be talking about, well, maybe an upcoming Senate race that might be interesting should Dick Durbin decides to step aside. 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. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Political Junkie Ken Rudin is with us. And, Ken, Jesse Jackson Jr., once the promising, young congressman from Chicago entered a guilty plea in a Washington, D.C., courtroom this morning. He acknowledged he misused campaign funds for political purses - personal purposes. Prosecutors said he bought expensive clothing, watches and trips with the campaign funds. Jackson's attorney, Reid Weingarten, said the former politician's criminal problems stemmed from his medical conditions. REID WEINGARTEN: I will answer a question that I received many times, and it's a question about he's doing. It turns out that Jesse has serious health issues. Many of you know about them. We're going to talk about them extensively with the court. And those health issues are directly related to his present predicament. That's not an excuse. That's just a fact. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jackson's departure from the House vacated the seat for Illinois' 2nd District. A special election will be held this Tuesday. Joining us now by phone is long-time Chicago political analyst, Don Rose. And it's good to have you with us today. DON ROSE: Good to be here. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this is a tragedy. DON ROSE: This is sad, tragic, just not enough words to express despair over such a - this event happening to such a promising young man from a prominent family and a socially conscious family. It's just heart-rending. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Do you have any explanation for it? DON ROSE: Well, what can I say? I think this really requires a psychoanalyst and not a political analyst. But my view is that somewhere along the line, Jesse and, perhaps with his wife, pilfered a little bit of money out of their campaign fund and got away with it. And I suspect he felt some guilt and apprehension over this. Somewhere around 2004, this very healthy, athletic guy, who's got a gym that would be the envy of any Bally club, blew up to 300 pounds. Now, that's, you know, again, I'm not a psychoanalyst, but that's neurotic eating. And I think all of this was playing into what was going on. The combination of guilt, fear and - probably triggering whatever bipolar issues were latent in the young man. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Don, you talk about, first of all, a little bit of money. It was $750,000. A lot of people are saying they don't remember any member of Congress... NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think you meant to say, it started with... KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Started with that, yes. But... DON ROSE: Started with - I suspect it started with a small amount. Of course, I know it's three quarters of a million dollars, and it's inexcusable. And most of the kinds of things he purchased were, you know, ludicrous, particularly ludicrous since he represents a district that has a very substantial poverty constituency there. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: You talk about a tremendous tragedy for Jackson. It's also a tremendous tragedy for the voters of the 2nd Congressional District because prior to Jesse Jackson Jr., you had Mel Reynolds, who went to prison for having sex with an underage girl. Before that, you had Gus Savage, who's racial outburst were embarrassing around the country. It's really embarrassing or tragic for the 2nd Congressional District. DON ROSE: Absolutely. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Who do you think is going to be representing that district after Tuesday's vote? DON ROSE: Well, it looks, right now, pretty much as if Robin Kelly, a three-time state representative and a former candidate for state treasurer, has the lead and her biggest competition in the African-American community just dropped out because - probably under pressure of some of these anti-gun and anti-NRA commercials that were linked to her - that linked her to the NRA. And Robin had a narrow lead over Deborah Halvorson, a former congresswoman and the only white in the district. And with Hutchinson dropping out, I would guess that most of those votes are going to go to Kelly. I will be quite surprised if Kelly is not the winner, if not with an absolutely majority with 16 people in the race, but certainly with a good plurality. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Don, we're talking about the NRA and guns. In a district that is so racked by gun violence, it's interesting to me, at least, that you have so many people like Toi Hutchinson, like Debbie Halvorson - although she comes from the suburban part of the district - but that they both have A ratings with the NRA, and they're very strongly backed by gun rights organizations. It's unusual, in my mind, in this kind of a district to have such a strong NRA presence. DON ROSE: It's an anomaly. It - first of all, it's because Halvorson represented a different kind of district, and probably a much more gun-friendly district, a much more semi-rural district. And Hutchinson was her aid, and Hutchinson succeeded Halvorson in the Senate. And my guess is she took the lead on some of those - I'm - let me back up. Halvorson was previously in the state Senate, then she went to Congress. And her aide Hutchinson succeeded her and, I think, picked up on some of those other votes that Halvorson had been making. That's the only possible way I can figure out an African-American legislator had been so lauded by the NRA. None of the rest of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, have anywhere near that kind of record. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What happened to create the new second district? Obviously, the state of Illinois lost population, so they had to contract somewhere. But how did the decision get made by the Democratically controlled legislature to merge those two districts? DON ROSE: Well, they saw a district that would still be represented by an African-American, by Jesse Jackson. They very carefully remapped - I think many would say gerrymandered - all of the districts in the state. And among the things they were sure to do was retain three black districts. This was the least-black of the three black districts that were created. But because Jesse Jackson, Jr. had crossover appeal, they knew that this would be a pretty solid Democratic district. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: There's also talk about - I mean, switching gears for one, quick second, is there's some talk about Dick Durbin, the veteran senator from Illinois, not running for re-election in 2014. What are you hearing about that? DON ROSE: We hear that back-and-forth. I take that with a grain of salt. I think Dick is - got a lot to do in that Senate. He's enjoying the position he's in. You know, he's basically second in command in the Senate. And barring something we don't know about such as illness or whatever, I suspect we're going to see Dick running again. He's, you know, he's a shoo-in. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Because we were hoping that if he would resign, then Governor Quinn could sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. DON ROSE: Not Pat Quinn. DON ROSE: Let's - we've had a lot of lousy governors. Pat Quinn's problems don't run in the direction of selling seats. He's got administrative problems galore, but corruption is not one of them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: As you look at the state of Illinois, this was once a state that was in play. This was a swing state. This was a state that elected Republicans, as well. What happened to make it one of the bluer states in the country? DON ROSE: It was largely demographics in Chicago and surrounding areas, and even parts of central and southern Illinois. We saw a very large increase in the African-American population. And simultaneously - particularly in the suburbs and some downstate areas - the Republicans moved so far to the right on the social issues that there was a significant, steady defection, particularly among women, and so that even the Cook County suburbs, which were once solidly Republican - 60, 70 percent back in the '60s - Cook County suburbs are today solidly Democratic, as are some of what we call the collar counties around Illinois - around Chicago. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: And if Governor Quinn is in trouble next year for re-election, apparently this could be in the Democratic primary. Is that what it looks like to you? DON ROSE: Yes. Yes. It's a solid Democratic state, and it would take some special circumstance. The only reason we lost that Senate race to a Republican, Mark Kirk, was that there were a string of ethics issues attached to his opponent, Mr. Giannoulias, and that was just enough to make the difference. Pat Quinn squeezed by in that Republican year, and Kirk just squeezed by Giannoulias. Had there not been those ethics questions around Giannoulias, had the reform candidate David Hoffman won that primary, he would be sitting in the Senate right now. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is, of course, a political star who emerged from the Democratic Party in the state of Illinois, who's currently serving his second term in the White House. Do you see anybody on that horizon there in Illinois, a rising star? DON ROSE: Not quite of that magnitude. There are a lot of young people looking in that direction. There's a fellow named Will Burns, an African-American state legislator - I'm sorry. He's now - he was a state legislator. He's now an alderman. He might be considered in that vein. And, of course, Lisa Madigan, who is the incumbent attorney general, is absolutely golden for whatever office she chooses to run for, whether it's governor, senator, whatever. She is clearly the star of Illinois politics. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ken? KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: And what do you make of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's tenure so far with the gun violence and the gun deaths in Chicago, perhaps, coming close to record-breaking numbers? Does Rahm Emanuel - is he held responsible, or should he be doing something differently? DON ROSE: I have a perspective on that issue that is not necessarily adhered to by many. I think the police deployment issue and the failure to put more police on the street and the failure to give community policing training is largely responsible here. And they would claim it's an economic issue and they're doing a lot of juggling, moving people from - moving sworn personnel from administrative-type jobs out on the street. But they're still doing this without the proper training in community policing. DON ROSE: And I think this has been one of Emanuel's great failures. And police Superintendent McCarthy, who I think - I'm still hopeful about, may get onto this. If not, we're going to see the rise, although, far from record levels. We're still at only about 50 or 60 percent of where the numbers where in the '90s. It's just this startling rise over the last two or three years that makes it look historically bad. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Don Rose, thanks very much for your time today. Appreciate it. DON ROSE: My pleasure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Don Rose, an independent political consultant, long-time Chicago political analyst. He joined us by phone from Chicago. And Ken Rudin will be back with us next Wednesday. Ken, thanks very much. KEN RUDIN, BYLINE: Thank you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

NPR's Political Junkie Ken Rudin recaps the week in politics. Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, shares the Democratic strategy to retake the House of Representatives in 2014. Political consultant Don Rose discusses the future of Chicago politics.

Der Politjunkie von NPR, Ken Rudin, fasst die Woche in der Politik zusammen. Der Abgeordnete Steve Israel (D-NY), Vorsitzender des Wahlkampfausschusses des Demokratischen Kongresses, teilt die Strategie der Demokraten, das Repräsentantenhaus 2014 zurückzuerobern. Der politische Berater Don Rose spricht über die Zukunft der Politik von Chicago.

美国国家公共电台的政治迷肯·鲁丁回顾了这一周的政治。众议员史蒂夫·伊斯雷尔（纽约州民主党）是民主党国会竞选委员会主席，他分享了民主党2014年夺回众议院的策略。政治顾问唐·罗斯讨论了芝加哥政治的未来。

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: To the Russia investigation now and where we are after a week of developments. Carrie Johnson is NPR's national justice correspondent, and she is just the person to sum it all up for us. Good morning, Carrie. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Good morning, Melissa. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And let's start with Paul Manafort. The former chairman of the Trump campaign was sentenced to prison this week again. We'll recall that he was sentenced in a different case last week. And all told, he's now looking at 7 1/2 years in prison. And it's a total that's been met with quite a bit of criticism as being just too light. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: That's true. You know, Melissa, it's not for me to say what punishment that Paul Manafort deserves on these D.C. charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, but a lot of lawyers and former prosecutors I've talked to over the last few days think 7 1/2 years might be about right. Paul Manafort was not a spy. He was not public enemy No. 1, as Judge Amy Jackson said, but he's not a victim either. This judge said he spent his entire career spinning and gaming the system, and that spin actually came to a stop in her courtroom. This judge said very bluntly that court is a place where facts still matter in this world. And the fact is that Paul Manafort, who's about to turn 70 years old, will be in prison for a long time. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: You know, right after that second sentencing this week the Manhattan district attorney unveiled a new indictment - 16-count indictment - against Paul Manafort. What for? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Yeah, Cyrus Vance, the elected district attorney in Manhattan, says Paul Manafort committed residential mortgage fraud and phonied up business records. But there's a big question about whether this state case violates the principle of double jeopardy, which is you can't charge and convict someone of the same crime twice. There's going to be a big part of Paul Manafort's defense in this case claiming double jeopardy. The real reason, Melissa, that New York authorities may have brought this case now is that the worry the - that President Trump will pardon Paul Manafort for these federal crimes. And, of course, presidential pardons do not apply for state crimes like these. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: I want to get, Carrie, to the story that you broke this week, which is that one of the most prominent prosecutors who's been working on the Russia investigation is leaving. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Yes, Andrew Weissmann helped build this case against Paul Manafort. He's been the target of a lot of criticism from conservative talk radio hosts. And former Trump advisor Steve Bannon once called Weissmann the LeBron James of money laundering investigations. My sources tell me Weissmann's departure is a signal the investigation is at an end. In fact, earlier this month, the lead FBI agent on this matter took a new job in Virginia. And Robert Mueller's been handing off strands of this investigation to prosecutors in D.C., Virginia and New York. The attorney general may make an announcement in the next two or three weeks about the end of this investigation. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: The special counsel, though, has also requested to delay sentencing for Paul Manafort's former deputy - that's Rick Gates. Would that push back the timing of the report's release? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: On Friday, the special counsel team filed court papers with the judge, saying Rick Gates continues to cooperate in several ongoing investigations. The issue is, Melissa, he may be cooperating with these prosecutors in New York and D.C. and Virginia as opposed to the heart of the special counsel investigation itself. And, of course, this week we found out that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort's former business partner, is going to trial November 5, Election Day. So some strains of this investigation will continue even though Mueller may close up shop before then. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: OK, NPR national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. Carrie, thanks so much. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: My pleasure.

Paul Manafort was sentenced for the second time, Roger Stone appeared in court and a key investigator is leaving the team.

Paul Manafort wurde zum zweiten Mal verurteilt, Roger Stone erschien vor Gericht und ein wichtiger Ermittler verlässt das Team.

保罗·马纳福特第二次被判刑，罗杰·斯通出庭，一名关键调查员即将离队。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: A high school wrestler named Brendan Johnston refused to compete against two opponents and forfeited those matches at the Colorado State Wrestling Championship last month. Those two opponents, Angel Rios and Jaslynn Gallegos, are women. Brendan Johnston told reporters he wasn't comfortable wrestling with women. Jaslynn Gallegos went on to win in fifth place in that tournament. She is a senior at Skyview High School and joins us now from Brighton, Colo. Ms. Gallegos, thanks so much for being with us. JASLYNN GALLEGOS: Yeah. No problem. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: First, congratulations. JASLYNN: Thank you. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: How did you feel when Brendan Johnston declined to compete against you? JASLYNN: Well, one of my things is I just want to be a wrestler, not necessarily defined as a girl wrestler. So it kind of hurt me a little bit because, you know, I just want to be this wrestler. And my gender is holding me back. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Brendan Johnston told reporters, quote, "I don't want to treat a young lady like that on the mat or off the mat and not to disrespect the heart or the effort that she's put in. That's not what I want to do." Do you accept that? JASLYNN: Yeah, I mean, everybody has their own beliefs. But at the same time, it's not just black and white. Like, you can't really change what somebody believes. Like, for me, I believe that I'm just a wrestler. And he believes that you're not just a wrestler. You know, you're a female wrestler. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Now, let me ask. You know what's going on in this country and around the world. Can you see in this day and age why a young man just may not want to put himself in the position of applying force on a woman or pressing against her even if it's in a public athletic competition? JASLYNN: You know, I feel like that whole situation is something that the wrestling community has gone past, especially, like, since I've wrestled hundreds of guys. Like, that's not an issue here, you know? It's kind of unheard of in the wrestling community for a girl to say something happened during a match. JASLYNN: It's wrestling, and I think we all understand that it's a very physical sport. You're literally fighting someone to put them to their back. It's - you're not thinking about anything else at the time because you're trying to win a match. For me, when I wrestle, it's literally all muscle memory because I practice my shots and my stand-ups and my sit-outs and my pinning combination so often I don't even have to think when I wrestle. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Anything you'd like to say to boys who might be reluctant to wrestle you? JASLYNN: You know, just wrestle me. You know, you might get pinned. You might win by one or two points. You might even pin me. But I'm definitely worth giving a match to, you know? SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And I gather your brothers are wrestlers, too, right? JASLYNN: Yes. My older brother, he wrestled his whole life, as well - qualified for state. And then my two little brothers, they are currently wrestling. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Bet you can beat them. JASLYNN: Oh, yeah, definitely - both of... SCOTT SIMON, HOST: (Laughter). JASLYNN: ...Them at the same time. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: (Laughter) I gather you started wrestling when you were 5. JASLYNN: Yes. I did. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Well, so you've been at it a while. Anything you would like to tell young women who want to wrestle? JASLYNN: You know, just like anything, there's going to be points where it gets really hard, and you don't know if you can do it. But, you know, if you push yourself and just keep going, especially if you love it, it's worth it in the end to just keep on doing it. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Jaslynn Gallegos, a wrestler at Skyview High School in Thornton, Colo., thanks so much for being with us. JASLYNN: Yeah. No problem.

NPR's Scott Simon talks with high school wrestler Jaslynn Gallegos of Brighton, Colo. A male wrestler refused to face off against her at a state championship.

Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit der Highschool-Wrestlerin Jaslynn Gallegos aus Brighton, Colorado. Ein männlicher Wrestler weigerte sich, bei einer Staatsmeisterschaft gegen sie anzutreten.

NPR的斯科特·西蒙与科罗拉多州布莱顿的高中摔跤手贾斯琳·加列戈斯交谈。一名男子摔跤手拒绝在州锦标赛上与她对抗。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Another border event now. Today the sister cities of Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, celebrate their annual Abrazo Children Ceremony. The event brings together children from each side of the border who cross the bridge that links the two towns. It has special resonance now in an era of heightened anti-immigrant and border security rhetoric. Lorena Rios reports. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: The annual event is called the Abrazo Children Ceremony. It's been going on for nearly half a century. Each year, both cities nominate a child to represent them. The children dress up in their local finery and walk to the middle of the bridge to embrace their counterparts from the other side. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Thirty-four years ago, Erika Garcia Hein was the Abraza child representing the U.S. But she talks about it like it was just yesterday. ERIKA GARCIA HEIN: Oh, I remember everything. Yes. I was 9. Just to see the amount of people on both sides sharing a hug, the music is playing, you're marching to the bridge - it's just, wow, you can't help but get emotional. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Since then, her son, niece and two nephews have also been Abrazo children celebrating the blurred lines between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo. ERIKA GARCIA HEIN: You know, the kids - they don't realize the political, you know, background that's happening. To them, they're just befriending somebody from another country without a border. That - to them, there's no border. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to now present the 2019 Abrazo children. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: At a reception for this year's Abrazo children, the children from each country danced and practiced their hugs. Maria Candelaria Uribe remembered earlier celebrations. MARIA CANDELARIA URIBE: We used to have the governor here all the time from Texas. We had, like, four or five governors from Mexico. And they would party, and they would get to know each other so that if they needed something, they could just pick up the telephone and call each other and talk to each other. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Now things are changing. MARIA CANDELARIA URIBE: We wanted them to see how we work so well together. It's very important. They're way up there. They don't know what's going on down here. But they don't come as often as they used to. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: The political talk from Washington seems to bear little resemblance to the actual daily interactions between these two cities. Pete Saenz is Laredo's mayor. PETE SAENZ: This rhetoric galvanized us. It brought us even closer together. And we interact, and we're so interdependent. That's life in the border. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Laredo is 95 percent Hispanic. And its land ports are some of the busiest in the country, hosting over $200 billion in trade each year. LUCY HASTINGS: I'm a Laredoan - full-force Laredoan. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Lucy Hastings is the mother of this year's Abrazo child from Laredo. LUCY HASTINGS: We live in the border, so we have a little bit of both worlds. So we take a lot of pride in both countries. LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: Laura Edith Garza de Perez is the mother of the Abrazo child representing Mexico. She feels the same way. LAURA EDITH GARZA DE PEREZ: (Speaking Spanish). LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: "We're really just one," she said. "This friendship and sisterhood doesn't change. It's us who decide as citizens how to live our own history." LORENA RIOS, BYLINE: For NPR News, I'm Lorena Rios in Laredo.

Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, celebrate their annual "Abrazo Bridge Ceremony" on Saturday. It has special resonance in an era of heightened anti-immigrant and border security rhetoric.

Laredo, Texas, und Nuevo Laredo, Mexiko, feiern am Samstag ihre jährliche \"Abrazo-Brückenzeremonie\". Sie hat eine besondere Bedeutung in einer Zeit verschärfter Anti-Einwanderungs- und Grenzsicherheitsrhetorik.

周六，德州的拉雷多和墨西哥的新雷多共同庆祝他们一年一度的“阿布拉索大桥仪式”。在一个反移民浪潮和边境安全言论高涨的时代，这一仪式引起人们特殊的共鸣。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Puerto Rico is facing a major transition now. After weeks of protests, the Governor Ricardo Rossello announced that he is resigning. His last day in office is on Friday, but who is taking over remains unclear. And that has a lot of people in the U.S. territory concerned, including Puerto Rican journalist and commentator Ana Teresa Toro. ANA TERESA TORO: I'm definitely worried. People are not satisfied. Last night, there was a lot of people back again in Old San Juan protesting. And I think it's not going to stop. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Recently, she wrote an opinion piece in the Spanish-language New York Times, and Toro argues that the protests mark an awakening of Puerto Rico's true nature. When she spoke to our co-host Rachel Martin, she pointed to the symbolism in Puerto Rico's coat of arms. ANA TERESA TORO: I like to use the figure of the lamb in our badge, our national emblem - and a very docile, obedient lamb. And that idea has made a lot of the people in Puerto Rico to present themselves or to think as themselves as a very docile country. But that's changed. I think that there's been, like, a symbolic death of that lamb figure, and there is a new social animal emerging. It's a more angry animal, and we're going to find out how it's going to behave in the next couple of months. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: What do people want now? In the beginning, it was an expression of anger over the allegations of corruption, ethical violations and a push for Rossello to resign. Now he has. What is the next push? What compels people to keep showing up to these protests? ANA TERESA TORO: People are starting to imagine, what kind of country do we want? How are we going to design this? And it has a lot to do with the recovery efforts, the community recovery efforts after the hurricane. Because when the government wasn't stepping up to history to how they were supposed to be reacting, people started solving the problems for themselves. And that change in the self-respect of the country, we saw each other as capable of changing things on our own. I think we don't only want him to go, but we want to start making decisions of our own. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: Let me ask you about that because when we have seen protesters go on the streets in Puerto Rico before, it has been around the issues of statehood or independence. Is that where this is leading now? ANA TERESA TORO: I think it's going to be affected by it, but I think it's not the main priority right now. In the protests, there were a lot of people that favor statehood that were there because they were just absolutely angry about the way the government has been handling everything after and during the hurricane up to the present. So I think this is going to have a lot of effect on that, but this is not the main discussion right now. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: Can you give us a sense of what the protests have felt like, sounded like, to you? ANA TERESA TORO: It's been like an awakening. It's been like a realization of the power that we can actually have. It's like a new air. It's like for the first time you look around and people know that there is - there might be a democratic deficit in Puerto Rico, but there is definitely a democratic culture in Puerto Rico. People have the notion that they have power, and they have proven that to themselves throughout these weeks. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: And it's young, isn't it? It's been driven a lot by young people? ANA TERESA TORO: Fourteen-year-olds, 19-year-olds, 17-year-olds - a lot of people that, they are just sons and daughters of the crisis, the economic crisis starting in Puerto Rico in 2006. So these young generations, they've grown up in a country where all of our institutions were falling apart so they have nothing to lose. They are actually willing to put everything out there because they've never had anything better. RACHEL MARTIN, BYLINE: Ana Teresa Toro, a journalist from Puerto Rico, talking to us about her recent op-ed published in the Spanish version of The New York Times, titled, "Puerto Rico Is Not The Same Country." Thank you so much for your time, Ana Teresa. We appreciate it. ANA TERESA TORO: Thank you.

NPR's Rachel Martin talks to Puerto Rican journalist and commentator Ana Teresa Toro about her op-ed in the Spanish language New York Times which focuses on reform in Puerto Rico.

Rachel Martin von NPR spricht mit der puertoricanischen Journalistin und Kommentatorin Ana Teresa Toro über ihren Kommentar in der spanischsprachigen New York Times, der sich auf die Reform in Puerto Rico konzentriert.

NPR的瑞秋·马丁与波多黎各记者兼评论员安娜·特雷莎·托罗谈论她在西班牙语的《纽约时报》上发表的专栏文章，这篇文章主要关注波多黎各的改革。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Over the last two nights in Detroit, the biggest debate among Democrats had to do with health care. Some of the presidential candidates want to completely get rid of private insurance companies. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is in that camp. ELIZABETH WARREN: The basic profit model of an insurance company is taking as much money as you can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in health care coverage. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Other candidates, like former Vice President Joe Biden, want Americans to be able to choose their health care coverage. JOE BIDEN: No one has to keep their private insurance, but they - if they would like their insurance, they should be able to keep it. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Dr. Zeke Emanuel has heard all this before. He was part of the team that drafted the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration. And he's here in the studio. Hey there. ZEKE EMANUEL: Nice to be with you, Ari. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Let's start with terminology because the phrase "Medicare for All" is being used to describe a lot of different things. In its purest sense, what does true "Medicare for All" actually mean? ZEKE EMANUEL: Well, it is - that's the Bernie Sanders' sense, and that is, we get rid of private insurance. Everyone is in Medicare fee-for-service. And in Medicare fee-for-service, you get to choose your doctor. The government pays the doctor or the hospital, so there's no co-pays, no deductibles; vision, hearing aids and other things that aren't in traditional Medicare packages are covered. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Which other Democrats besides Bernie Sanders are on that end of the health care spectrum? ZEKE EMANUEL: Well, it appears that Elizabeth Warren is. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Right. ZEKE EMANUEL: Although, not necessarily all the time. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And those are really the only two. Everyone else is sort of on a scale somewhere in between those. ZEKE EMANUEL: Right, right. I might say on a scale somewhere in between, that has more government intervention than Barack Obama had in the Affordable Care Act. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Yeah. ELIZABETH WARREN: Everyone is further towards more - government taking more responsibility. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And I do want to ask you about why the Obama administration went the course that it did. But first, just to understand the facts, right now, when you look at American health coverage, what percentage of Americans get health coverage on the private market as opposed to some form of government-provided health care? ZEKE EMANUEL: So you have about 150 to -60 million people have employer-sponsored insurance, and then about another 15 million people have individual coverage or through the exchanges, and that gets you to something like 55 to 60% of the population has private insurance. And then you have another - call it 130 million people who have Medicaid or Medicare coverage. So that's the breakdown. And we have roughly 89, 90% of Americans have health insurance. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So when you were working on the law that became known as Obamacare, there was no discussion of totally eliminating private coverage, but there was discussion of giving everybody the option of getting on Medicare, as is known as the public option. Why didn't the Obama administration ultimately go that route? ZEKE EMANUEL: Politically impossible. The charge against it was led by Joe Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut, where a lot of health insurance companies were based. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: He was an independent who caucused with the Democrats. ZEKE EMANUEL: Correct. But he wasn't the only one who was opposed to that. There were other Democrats who didn't take the lead the way Senator Lieberman did, and they were opposed. And it became clear we couldn't get that provision enacted and passed the bill. And that, I might remind the audience... ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: (Laughter). ZEKE EMANUEL: ...Was with 60 senators in the Senate and... ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Sixty Democrats - excuse me. ZEKE EMANUEL: Sixty Democrats in the Senate, right, and an overwhelming number in the House. There are people who have other views, and they listen to their constituents. And many constituents, whether union members or people with employers who give them good benefits or, I just don't want to think about it, and I'd rather let my employer deal with it, those people actually like their system, even if they have complaints about the insurance companies now and then. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So as you point out, this debate about political viability a decade ago is happening with 60 Democrats in the Senate. Right now Democrats don't even control the Senate. We don't know what the situation will be in 2020. But what do you think the political calculus is in this moment? I mean, do you think that a public option has become more politically viable in the last decade? ZEKE EMANUEL: Absolutely. I think it is... ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Even without a supermajority in Congress? ZEKE EMANUEL: I think both Republican and Democratic voters recognize that they want to have security, and a public option does communicate that security to them. It will always be there, and the government will stand behind it. And I do think that tells you - we learn from experience. If the marketplace isn't working, let's try something else. And I think that has to be the motivating factor behind any Democratic bill. We're aiming for universal coverage, and as we learn, we've got to revise and reform the system based upon how it's performing, not based upon some ideological commitment. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So how much is the debate that we're seeing this week among Democrats just about the difference between what it takes to win a Democratic primary and what it takes to actually get legislation through Congress? ZEKE EMANUEL: I think most of what we're hearing is about trying to differentiate your candidacy on health care from other candidates running. I might also say, one of the things that's been bothering me about the quality of the debate we have is it really is focused on coverage, and I think a much bigger element is affordability. We haven't had so much talk about the affordability argument, and that really has gotten a very small amount of the debate, and it needs a lot more of that debate. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Dr. Zeke Emanuel, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, and is now at the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks for coming in today. ZEKE EMANUEL: Thank you, Ari. It's been a pleasure.

NPR's Ari Shapiro speaks with Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an architect of the Affordable Care Act about the "Medicare for All" issue in the Democratic presidential debates.

Ari Shapiro von NPR spricht mit Dr. Zeke Emanuel, einem Architekten von Affordable Care Act, über das Thema \"Medicare für alle\" in den Präsidentschaftsdebatten der Demokraten.

美国国家公共广播电台的阿里·夏皮罗采访了《平价医疗法案》的设计师齐克·伊曼纽尔博士，谈到了民主党总统候选人辩论中的“全民医保”问题。

ALEX COHEN, host: From the Studios of NPR West, this is Day to Day. I'm Alex Cohen. Happy holidays. Coming up, it's the hotel where each of the rooms has its own name, monickers like Chestnut Foal, Paris Violets and The Matterhorn. A trip to the Madonna Inn, that story just ahead. First though, we spend this Christmas day talking about the intersection of religion and politics. Faith is a topic that came up often on the campaign trail. Here's an excerpt of then Senator Barack Obama talking about his faith at a conference two years ago. Senator BARACK OBAMA (Democrat, Illinois): When we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense rather than in a positive sense, others will fill that vacuum - those with the most insular views of faith or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan acts. ALEX COHEN, host: Joining me now to talk about the role faith is likely to play in President-elect Obama's administration is Kevin Eckstrom. He's editor of Religion News Service. Welcome to the program, Kevin. Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): Thanks for having me. ALEX COHEN, host: The president-elect recently asked Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at his inauguration ceremony, and it's a decision that's upset many people, including those who feel that Pastor Warren's stance towards homosexuals makes him an inappropriate choice. What message do you think that that decision sends about the role faith might play in Obama's administration? Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): I think it shows that he's going to have a lot - a different cast of characters than people might have thought. I think what the Rick Warren invitation signals is that you're going to have a broad-based religious outreach, probably a little bit broader than George Bush had. It's going to feature a cast of characters that maybe we haven't seen around the White House in a while, and some folks who may have felt shut out of the Bush White House, I think, will get a little bit more prominent spot in the Obama White House. ALEX COHEN, host: The Democratic National Convention kicked off this summer with an inter-faith gathering, and it featured leaders from many different religious traditions. How likely are we to see that kind of spirit of outreach under a President Obama? Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): I think you're going to see a lot of it, actually, because the interfaith crowd, if you will, and by that, you know, some of the minority faiths - Hindus, Muslims, even Jews to a certain extent - feel a lot more comfortable around a Democrat, and Obama feels a lot more comfortable around these folks than, I think, President Bush probably did. So, I think you're going to see some genuine interfaith gestures there. Now, what that translates to them into policy is sort of an open question, but I think you will see a much broader array of religious activists coming in and out of the White House. ALEX COHEN, host: How about the black church? Black Christian leaders played very critical roles helping Barack Obama win the election. Do you think they might be calling in favors over the next couple of years? Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): You know, I think that's sort of the one unanswered question that we haven't really been able to get answered, and it's sort of an awk... delicate question in a way because black churches don't want to be treated any differently. They don't want to, you know, think that they have a spot at the front of the line ahead of anyone else. But he is one of their own. He was formed and molded in the black church, and he certainly speaks their language, and they sort of come from the same background. The black church leaders that we've talked to say they don't expect anything special from President Obama. But I think, what you're going to see is that they're going to get invited more to the White House. Their views are going to be considered perhaps a lot more than they were under the Bush administration. The black church has a chance to have a very receptive ear that they haven't had in a long time. ALEX COHEN, host: Kevin, on the policy front, the president-elect said he will continue the Faith-Based Initiatives program, but that he's going to make some changes. What is he calling for? Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): Under the Bush administration, they have been fairly clear that churches who are recipients of these federal funds can use them to advance a Faith-Based message. So, you can have the gospel be an integral part of your drug rehab program, for example. President-elect Obama has signaled that he's a little less comfortable with that and is queezy about the idea of federal funds being used to proselytize or federal funds being used to discriminate in hiring. So under the Bush plan, a Baptist church that wanted to hire only Baptists to run their soup kitchen could do that. President-elect Obama is a little bit more nervous about using federal funds to say who churches can and cannot hire. So those are the two big changes, but clearly, he believes in the value of the program because he said that not only wants to maintain it, but also expand it. ALEX COHEN, host: Kevin Eckstrom edits the news wire Religion News Service. Thank you, Kevin. Mr. KEVIN ECKSTROM (Editor, Religion News Service): Thank you. ALEX COHEN, host: For more on the faith-based initiatives program we call David Kuo. He served as deputy director of the office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President Bush. Though many people tend to associate the program with the current administration, he says the concept has been around much longer. Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): I remember talking to Ethel Kennedy four or five years ago, and we're talking about the Faith-Based thing and she said, Faith-Based? She goes, Why do people think this is new? We did this during the 1960s. We just called it, you know, Community Organizing. You know, and I think people need to remember that this Faith-Based thing isn't actually all that new. You know, Faith-Based organizations are so utterly and completely vital to the social fabric of the United States that we could literally not take care of the people we take care of without them. ALEX COHEN, host: You served as the deputy director of the Faith-Based Initiatives program during the Bush administration. What do you see as some of its most notable accomplishments? Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): I've been a critic of it so beginning with the accomplishments probably isn't a bad idea. And that is that it raised Faith-Based organizations to, you know, a national level and made them part of the national conversation, and that's a good thing. And I guess the other good thing is it really did educate organizations for the very first time about how to interact with the federal government. And I think that it exposed the federal government itself to the idea that these Faith-Based organizations, many of which had received federal money for a long time, that people in the government didn't need to be afraid of them. ALEX COHEN, host: As you mention, you're also been critical of the program. One of the flaws that you've noted includes charges that funding was used for mobilizing religious voters in securing Republican wins. In your opinion, what went wrong? Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): I think what went wrong was there was never a core conviction in the White House that this is something that mattered to the president. You know, the idea of helping Faith-Based organizations or helping the poor or distributing billions of dollars to them wasn't a lingo that people spoke. ALEX COHEN, host: Well, and on the other side of the aisle, there was Democratic opposition, to a certain extent, of the Faith-Based Initiative programs underneath President Bush. Now that there will be a Democrat in the White House, do you think that that will change? Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): It will be a good question. You know, and I think part of it will depend on how much President Obama pushes some of the hot-button issues. You know, and unfortunately, one of the hot button issues is this topic of, you know, so-called religious hiring, so-called religious discrimination, you know, which simply means the right of the Faith-Based organizations to be able to hire people who share the same faith. Now, the question becomes what happens to that right when federal funds are involved, and you know, unfortunately, President Bush made it a big political deal, to answer, you know, to say, oh, they have to hire people based on - they have to have this right to hire. President Obama apparently is going to say, well, they absolutely cannot have that right to hire. And, you know, I just hope that he doesn't get bogged down in that issue because at the end of the day, you know, it's not an issue that is fundamentally important to people on the ground. ALEX COHEN, host: Given your experience with these issues, what one piece of advice would you give to President-elect Obama when it comes to dealing with Faith-Based Initiatives? Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): My advice to him would be don't get bogged down in the small, in the political issues. Focus on the big issues and the big issues are, you know, the issues that care about the poor. ALEX COHEN, host: And any advice how not to get bogged down in the politics? Easier said than done, no? Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): Oh, very much easier said than done. But unfortunately, what he has before him is this extraordinary economic crisis. And I was talking to a friend who is part of a very, very large donor-advised fund, who was saying that, I think, for the first time, in a very long time you know, real, material, physical poverty in the United States isn't going to just be isolated to small pockets, that it will be able to be seen around us. And you know, and that's a huge, huge tragedy. But perhaps it is that tragedy that will allow President Obama to be able to make the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives not political at all, but really have a material impact on helping people. ALEX COHEN, host: David Kuo served as deputy director of the White House office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He currently is the CEO of culture11.com. Thank you, David. Mr. DAVID KUO (Former Deputy Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives): Oh, it's my pleasure. ALEX COHEN, host: Many Americans aren't comfortable with the notion of religious faith influencing policy. Some even go as far as lobbying Washington on behalf of atheists, agnostics and other nontheistic Americans. Lori Lipman Brown heads a group that does just that. It's called the Secular Coalition for America. She told me the coalition is looking forward to the new administration. Ms. LORI LIPMAN BROWN (Director and Lobbyist, Secular Coalition for America): We know that one of the first things Obama promised to do is to get rid of the limitations on embryonic stem cell research, and that's a wonderful thing for medical science. On the faith-based initiative, we know that the new president has decided to continue them, but he also said that he would no longer allow religious discrimination in hiring for secular social services with government funds. That's a huge difference. We're also very hopeful that when Obama continues faith-based funding, that he will make sure that the grants will be given based on who's doing the best job and who makes the best grant proposal, not trying to sift money to religious groups away from secular groups just because one's religious and one's secular. ALEX COHEN, host: It's the holiday season, and one of your fellow organizations, the American Humanist Association, has launched an ad campaign tied to Christmas. These are signs that have appeared on billboards, on buses and they say, why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake. What's the thought here behind this campaign? Ms. LORI LIPMAN BROWN (Director and Lobbyist, Secular Coalition for America): I know that the motivation is to get people who are humanists to understand that there is an organization that they can affiliate with and meet other people who are humanists. But I think it has an even broader impact, and that is that to the many, many people who say to me, I don't understand how you can be an ethical person if you don't believe in God, it lets people know that, yes, I believe we can be good for goodness' sake. That someone can live an ethical, moral, decent life, reach out to our fellow human beings, without necessarily having a God-belief. ALEX COHEN, host: Lori, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a personal question. We're in the midst of Hanukkah. It's Christmas, how does a nontheist spend the holidays? Ms. LORI LIPMAN BROWN (Director and Lobbyist, Secular Coalition for America): Most of us like parties. So any excuse for a party will do. So we'll go to one person's Christmas party and to another person's Hanukkah bash. A lot of us celebrate the solstice and of course, there's HumanLight, which is the humanist celebration of the light within human beings and generally just enjoying the season. ALEX COHEN, host: Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition for America. Thank you, Lori, and happy holidays. Ms. LORI LIPMAN BROWN (Director and Lobbyist, Secular Coalition for America): Thank you, Alex.

Host Alex Cohen talks with Kevin Eckstrom, editor of Religion News Service, and David Kuo, former deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, about how President-elect Obama plans to utilize the initiative. Cohen also talks with Lori Lipman Brown, the director of Secular Coalition for America, about the role secular values will play in the next administration.

Moderator Alex Cohen spricht mit Kevin Eckstrom, Redakteur des Religion News Service, und David Kuo, ehemaliger stellvertretender Direktor des Büro für Glaubens- und Gemeinschaftsinitiativen, diskutieren darüber, wie der designierte Präsident Obama die Initiative nutzen will. Cohen spricht auch mit Lori Lipman Brown, der Direktorin der Säkulare Koalition für Amerika, über die Rolle, die säkulare Werte in der nächsten Regierung spielen werden.

主持人亚历克斯·科恩与《宗教新闻服务》编辑凯文·埃克斯特伦以及信仰与社区倡议办公室前副主任大卫·郭就当选总统奥巴马计划如何利用该倡议进行了交谈。科恩还与美国世俗联盟主任洛里·利普曼·布朗讨论了世俗价值观将在下届政府中发挥的作用。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is News & Notes, I'm Farai Chideya. We just heard from South Africa's ruling party leader Jacob Zuma of the African National Congress. For analysis we've got Emira Woods. She is co-director of foreign policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. Hey Emira. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Hey Farai. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So did Jacob Zuma say anything that surprised you first of all? Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Well, he said a number of things. I think I was really surprised at his comments on the xenophobic acts in South Africa. Painting those as issues of crime and violence, I thought, just did not hit true, you know, it didn't ring true, Farai. I think clearly what was at issue in South Africa, both in the actions that were xenophobic actions and in this push for Zuma is an economic condition where people really felt that their hopes and dreams of the apartheid days have not been met. And I think there is an economic clambering for change. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Oftentimes that ends up taking some negative consequences as was the case when the foreigners were targeted, but in the case of the political change, it has brought forth a vibrant process where the ANC is now being challenged from within. And this has what brought Zuma to power. So I think downplaying, really, the economic conditions within South Africa was a bit of a surprise for me. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It sounds as if you think that the fragmentation within the party is a good thing. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Well, I think clearly, you know, democracies are vibrant spaces where the will of the people gets expressed, and I think in South Africa you have some definite cleavages. You have a working class, you have working families, you have poor, marginalized, impoverished communities that have really so many needs for housing, for healthcare, for decent jobs, that have not been met in the years, really, since the end of the apartheid era. And I think I is those cleavages that are so stark today. And when demands from the people become at the level of political and party functioning, I think it is those demands that have to be heard, and so I do think that having differences within the party, within the South African political environment, it is, it's a good thing for democracy, and it's a good thing for the people. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How do you think he contextualized himself vis-a-vis Thabo Mbeki? He says, oh he wasn't my rival, he was my comrade, what do you make of that? Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Well I think there is this whole sense that we were all friends, you know. Mbeki, though, - Mbeki came from a different tradition, was part of the ANC, but Mbeki had this sense of the learned one, you know a scholarly one. And clearly Zuma comes from a different tradition where he was seen as a leader of the military wing of the ANC and a staunch leader of that element within the party, less scholarly, educated himself as many say. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): I mean, it is a different tradition that he represents and yet I think he's trying to, you know we have the election in the U.S. where the mantra is about change, change, change, and I think for Zuma there's a tug that the mantra may be things will not necessarily change. That is both a mantra for the ANC to say we have to stay true to the principals of the ANC but also, you know, we have to be strong in spite of all the different demands within the party to keep the party united. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: When you think about the corruption charges and the trial - the rape trial that he went through, what lasting marks do those leave? Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Well, I think it has not only lasting marks on Zuma and on South Africa, but in fact, on Africa as a whole. I think in this age of when HIV-AIDS crisis has gripped the world, and the pandemic has had such devastating impacts around the world, to have someone in a position of political leadership, regardless of whom they are, make comments that seem really sophomoric - seems a little bit insignificant as a way of describing it, absurd really, these comments that he made in spite of his apologies, thinking that, you know, you'll take a shower and that will protect you, when clearly the science speaks otherwise of this disease. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): So I think it is really sad that those comments were made, that that behavior was condoned and I think clearly, as Zuma quite rightly said, the court of public opinion judged him and judged him poorly, but in spite of that, the ANC has put their backing towards him, and we will well see in April of 2009 a President Zuma taking hold and taking office in South Africa and representing not only the South African people but much of Africa throughout these international foray that South Africa so well placed in. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So although that election hasn't taken place yet, you sound extremely confident that he will become the president of South Africa. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): Well, Farai, you know the ANC won 67 percent of the vote last go around and I think that, you know, in spite of all of the pressures they maintain a solid hold on so much of the country because of the history of having fought, or you know, having been the liberators against the apartheid regime. And so I think there is tremendously high popular sentiment in support of the ANC, and I really think it will take time before there is a consolidation of any type of oppositional party within South Africa. I think there may well be - we see the cleavages, you know, you have the defense minister Lakota speaking out forcefully about starting another party. And you have these sentiments being expressed, but I think it will take time before any other party is able to garner the level of popular support and also the level of political machinery that the ANC currently has in South Africa. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Emira thank you so much. Ms. EMIRA WOODS (Co-director of Foreign Policy, Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies): A pleasure, thank you Farai. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Emira Woods is co-director of foreign policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies and she joined us from our headquarters in Washington D.C.

For analysis of our interview with South Africa's ruling party leader, Jacob Zuma of the African National Congress, Farai Chideya talks with Emira Woods — co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Zur Analyse unseres Interviews mit dem südafrikanischen Führer der regierenden Partei, Jacob Zuma vom afrikanischen Nationalkongress, spricht Farai Chideya mit Emira Woods – Co-Direktorin von Foreign Policy in Focus am Institute für Studien der Politik.

为了分析我们对南非执政党领导人、非洲人国民大会党主席雅各布·祖马的采访，法拉·奇迪亚与政策研究所《聚焦外交政策》联合主任埃米拉·伍兹进行了谈话。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: This coming week marks a year since 17 students and staff were shot to death at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Seventeen people were also injured. Witnesses identified a former student as the gunman. He's been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder. The shooting sparked grief and outrage across the nation and galvanized many in Parkland to organize, to rally and to speak out against gun violence. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The Parkland students, as they have become known, have been active in the "March For Our Lives" rally in Washington, D.C., and in rallies and activities across the country. Two leaders of that movement are now in our studios, Matt Deitsch and Charlie Mirsky. Thanks both very much for being with us. MATT DEITSCH: Thank you so much for having us. CHARLIE MIRSKY: Thank you. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Matt, you're a graduate now of Marjory Stoneman Douglas. I gather you have siblings who are still there. What's the last year been like? MATT DEITSCH: Well, I graduated in 2016, and I was really involved in clubs at the school. I was senior class vice president. I knew people of all grades. And so I was home when everything was happening. And on February 14, that evening, I mean, we were supposed to have a birthday party for my sister, and some of her friends didn't make it out of the school. And the reality is that in that moment, I felt absolutely helpless. And my sister was sad, my brother was angry and I didn't know what to do. MATT DEITSCH: And it wasn't until we started going to funerals and vigils where something clicked in me and I said I was going to start working. And so the last year has been effective, and we've been mobilizing young people. We've been inspiring the nation. And we've been shedding light on the reality of gun violence. And that's the real difference that we're trying to communicate to people is, like, it's not okay to just react. You need to activate yourself because if we're not standing up and organizing ourselves, then we're not doing enough to save lives in America. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Charlie Mirsky, you attended Spanish River High School, which I gather is quite close, right? CHARLIE MIRSKY: Yeah, it's just a couple miles away. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What was the day like a year ago? CHARLIE MIRSKY: So the whole experience was very different for me because I was not aware immediately that everything was going on. I heard rumors about certain things, but when this stuff happens in your community, I assumed it wasn't true. I thought this kind of stuff doesn't happen to us. This kind of stuff doesn't happen here. And in my mind, statistically, I didn't even think it happened, really, anywhere. CHARLIE MIRSKY: So to find out that it was true that my friend's school was shot up and that a previous teacher of mine, Scott Beigel, was, in fact, killed in that shooting, that was really shocking for me. And that - I wasn't immediately involved. I didn't think - the moment it happened, I wasn't immediately thinking, I'm going to go into this and make this stuff happen and change these laws. But "March For Our Lives" - we just realized, like, if we work together, we can really make something happen. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: In a lot of different ways, both of you have learned over the past year that it would be hard to think of a more divisive issue in America than guns, gun rights, gun registration, gun ownership - divisive, emotional, important to a lot of people on all sides. Are there one or two areas where you can see most people agreeing across party or ideological lines? CHARLIE MIRSKY: Yeah, there's a bill introduced by Mike Thompson and Peter King. It's a bipartisan bill, 10 original co-sponsors - five Democrats and five Republicans. It's universal background checks, which is approved by 97 percent of Americans. Also, another topic would be working on digitizing ATF records, helping law enforcement enforce the laws that already exist. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And that's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. CHARLIE MIRSKY: That's right. If there are measures that law enforcement needs to enact so that they can keep American families safe, and they can't do that if they aren't given the proper resources or means to do so. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Have you, over this past year, not encountered anyone who would say to either of you, look; I mean, I don't want anyone to be hurt or killed, but I do feel safer if I have free access to a gun because I live in a rough neighborhood, and life can be rough, and that's my home security system? I can't wait five minutes for the police to arrive. CHARLIE MIRSKY: Yeah. MATT DEITSCH: And every single one of our policies supports your right to do that. That's the thing is like, when we're talking about what we actually need to fight to prevent gun violence, while you are statistically less safe with a gun than without a gun, that may not work on - to convince many Americans, and that's OK. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Well, you know, just telling them the statistics won't make somebody feel safe. MATT DEITSCH: Yeah, of course, because, I mean, that's a very emotional choice. And you're - like, you have the right to make that choice. So when we have those conversations, I usually tie it into - Parkland was one of the safest cities in Florida. It was voted that for almost a decade. Thousand Oaks was a top-five safest city in America. This can happen anywhere. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I think I have one last question for both of you. Are there times when you'd like to get back to being a kid? CHARLIE MIRSKY: I mean, in some ways, we still are kids. Like, we'll still go out sometimes late at night and, you know, go to the bowling alley or go see movies or whatnot. There are times where we just want to lay down and do nothing. But on February 14, we made that commitment to do this work, and we haven't faltered at all. MATT DEITSCH: Obviously, I'd trade anything to go back to February 13 and not have experienced that trauma, not seen what my sister went through and what the community went through and what all these families have gone through. And - but that's why we do this work, and that's why we're out here every single day, every single night, working as hard as we possibly can because every day, there's more families that are feeling like that in America, and our country's better than that. MATT DEITSCH: I want every single person that's experienced gun violence today to be some of the last people experiencing gun violence in America because this trauma is deep, and it has to be acknowledged, and we have to be actively trying to prevent this trauma. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Matt Deitsch and Charlie Mirsky are a couple of organizers of the "March For Our Lives." Thanks very much for being with us. MATT DEITSCH: Thank you so much. CHARLIE MIRSKY: Thank you.

NPR's Scott Simon speaks with activists Matt Deitsch and Charlie Mirsky about their efforts to end gun violence in the wake of last year's shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit den Aktivisten Matt Deitsch und Charlie Mirsky über ihre Bemühungen, die Waffengewalt nach der Schießerei im letzten Jahr an der Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School zu beenden.

NPR新闻的斯科特·西蒙与活动人士马特·戴奇、查理·米尔斯基谈论了他们在去年马乔里·斯通曼·道格拉斯高中枪击案后为结束枪支暴力所做的努力。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Refugees continue to flee Venezuela this weekend. Idle oil refineries and U.S. sanctions mean the country could run out of gas within the month. And yet President Nicolas Maduro shows no signs of resigning. Dozens of countries, including the United States, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, France and the U.K., now recognize Juan Guaido, the opposition leader, as interim president. We turn now to Moises Naim. He's a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy for many years and Venezuela's minister of trade for one year - 1989 to 1990. He has a weekly column read all over the world. Thanks so much for being with us. MOISES NAIM: Good morning. Thanks for having me. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: If President Maduro wanted to resign, where could he go? MOISES NAIM: Cuba, Iran, the - Russia - dictator - he has many friends among the world's dictators. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Has it become harder for dictators or so-called strongmen, strong persons, to just leave power? MOISES NAIM: Absolutely. They used to end up there in the French Riviera and big mansions in Europe. Now they tend to also end up in Europe but not in big mansions but in the criminal court - in The Hague. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And has that had the effect of making it more difficult sometimes to get rid of certain people? MOISES NAIM: Absolutely. They are - they don't trust now any promises that they will not be prosecuted or taken in front of a judge. And also, you know, the standards of human rights internationally have changed. And there is a very active community - globally - that chases after dictators and people that have violated human rights and have committed the crimes against humanity, which is the case for many of them. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Now, isn't the logic of that - the humanitarian logic of that - that knowing they might have to face criminal charges will discourage dictators from striking out at their own people? MOISES NAIM: Absolutely. But strangely enough, we see that continuing to happen. We don't know how many thought about it and decided not to do it because they were fearful of being prosecuted internationally. But we do know that there are still many that go ahead with all kinds of crimes and violations of human rights. And Nicolas Maduro is a paramount example of that. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What about people who work for somebody who's in power and might not get the same guarantees? MOISES NAIM: Well, the problem with the guarantees is that who gives them? Because now there is a highly fragmented global community of attorneys, of activists, of non-governmental organizations and foundations that can't initiate proceedings against these people. Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet felt very safe in, you know, in a trip to Europe. And all of a sudden, he was taken into custody unexpectedly by a judge in Spain. And so, you know, no one today can offer foolproof guarantees to dictators that they will not be prosecuted once they are out of power or even if they are still in power. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: If you take a look, for example, at Syria, have we seen that at play? MOISES NAIM: Yeah. Well, in Syria remember; we - the international community thought that Bashar al-Assad was gone and that his days were counted. And he's still there. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Yeah. In part, you believe, because he has no place to go? MOISES NAIM: In part of that. But in part surely is because he got a lifeline from the - from Russia, from Vladimir Putin - that the sudden presence of Russia as a player in a process that had been dominated by the United States and Europe. And all of a sudden, Vladimir Putin became a spoiler of that. And today, it's impossible to imagine a deal in Syria that does not include Russia and Vladimir Putin at the table. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Moises Naim was also a contributing editor of The Atlantic. Thanks so much for being with us, sir. MOISES NAIM: Thank you.

If Venezuela ousts its president, Nicolas Maduro, where would he go? NPR's Scott Simon asks columnist Moisés Naím what options dictators and strongmen have once they're cast out.

Wenn Venezuela seinen Präsidenten Nicolas Maduro absetzt, wohin würde er gehen? Scott Simon von NPR fragt den Kolumnisten Moisés Naím, welche Möglichkeiten Diktatoren und Machthaber haben, wenn sie abgesetzt werden.

如果委内瑞拉把总统马杜罗赶下台，他将何去何从里？NPR记者斯科特·西蒙采访专栏作家莫伊斯·纳伊姆，独裁者和铁腕人物一旦被驱逐将作何选择。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: More than half of the federal workers affected by the government shutdown are considered essential. That means they have to go to work regardless. That's true at the nation's federal prisons and for correctional officers where understaffing is already a problem, some are required to work double shifts. Justin Tarovisky is a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Complex in Hazelton, W.Va. It's a high-security prison that includes many violent prisoners. JUSTIN TAROVISKY: We know what we signed up for. You know, I know every day something could happen at especially the United States Penitentiary. You know, it's not an easy job by any stretch of the standard. There's a lot of daily activities that you have to monitor for, the emergencies, responding to different emergencies, the contraband that you try to retrieve, whether it's drugs, knives, weapons, whatever have you. In this facility, there has been a lot of that this year. There's been three - you know, last year, there was three homicides, and there was a lot of violence... SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Including the crime boss Whitey Bulger. JUSTIN TAROVISKY: Yes. It's not an easy place to work. I've been here for almost, you know, 10 years. I've never seen morale this low at FCC Hazleton. You know, are we going to come in here and do our job? Absolutely. I mean, we've got some of the best officers that respond to emergencies in the country. I can guarantee you that. I would take these guys into any situation. But is it right to be adding all these additives into the fire - understaffed, augmentation, thrown in now a government shutdown where you've got to come to work and, oh, you're going to get paid, but we don't know when? I mean, that's not right. It's just adding to that fire, throwing the fuel on it. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: You and another prison guard, Grayson Sharp, have sued the government for failing to pay wages. JUSTIN TAROVISKY: Yeah. Originally, back on the 22, I worked nine hours of overtime. With that nine hours of overtime, I did not get paid on the 22 because that was the day the shutdown started. So that's not to mention not only myself but countless officers that they've gone through that. And myself, personally, I've been mandated multiple times during the shutdown. That means when I come into work and I work my eight hours, I'm told I can't leave because we're understaffed and you have to now stay here for 16. You know, does that affect you mentally? Oh, absolutely. You know, I should be paid for what I work, especially when I'm being told I can't leave the institution. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: So let me get this straight. You not only work your eight-hour shift, but you are - more than once you're told you have to work a double shift. JUSTIN TAROVISKY: Absolutely. It happens every day here at Hazelton - every day. And it's because of the short-staffing, some of the call offs and the recent strain of the shutdown, the hardships. And I keep bringing up morale. I mean, you know, I want to go home. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Justin Tarovisky is a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Complex in Hazelton, W.Va. Thanks so much for being with us. JUSTIN TAROVISKY: Thank you.

NPR's Scott Simon talks to Justin Tarovisky, who works at a penitentiary in Hazelton, W.Va., about what it's been like to put in hours — including overtime and double shifts — without getting paid.

Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit Justin Tarovisky, der in einem Gefängnis in Hazelton, W.Va., arbeitet, darüber, wie es war, Stunden zu investieren – einschließlich Überstunden und Doppelschichten – ohne bezahlt zu werden.

NPR的斯科特·西蒙采访了贾斯汀·塔罗维斯基，塔罗维斯基在西弗吉尼亚州哈泽尔顿的一所监狱工作，他讲述了在没有报酬的情况下投入数小时——包括加班和两班倒——的感觉。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And let's move from personal effects of that shutdown to some of the political ones. Ron Elving, NPR senior editor-correspondent - Ron, thanks so much for being with us. RON ELVING, BYLINE: Good to be with you, Scott. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Does the president have an exit plan for the shutdown? RON ELVING, BYLINE: At this moment, no such plan is apparent. The president says that if the Democrats don't give him his wall, he can declare a national emergency. And then he says he can assert the power to build a wall using military construction funds already appropriated for other jobs, perhaps including disaster relief funds for rebuilding areas that have been hit by hurricanes. Now, on Friday, the president explicitly said he was not ready to do this yet, but he hasn't ruled it out. It is, of course, controversial. Conservatives have not liked this in the past. Some of the people in the Senate who would certainly fit in that category, supporters of the president, have urged him not to do it. But some of his allies in the Capitol and back in the conservative media are saying the emergency looks like the only way out. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Just a few weeks ago - and, of course, this is all on audio and video - the president in the Oval Office told Senator Schumer he'll take the blame for any shutdown. Since then, of course, he's tried to shift it over to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer, but who will wind up owning this politically? RON ELVING, BYLINE: A shutdown covers no one with glory, Scott, and surely some Americans will accept the shift of blame, as you described it. But let's review the actual action from this past week. The Democratic-led House is passing bills that would reopen the government, the departments that are not open now, one at a time. And they've even had some help on those votes from some of the House Republicans - just a handful basically. But those bills are frozen in the Republican Senate because, there, the party leaders refuse to vote on them at all until they get a green light from the president. So there we are. And if the president's changed his mind here, it could have something to do with the polls that show that only about 25 percent of Americans think the wall is worth a shutdown. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I don't want the weekend to go by without asking about something the president said about that wall that he wants. I'm going to quote. He was talking to White House reporters. He said, quote, "during the campaign, I would say Mexico is going to pay for it. Obviously, I never said this and never said they were going to write out a check." I don't know how to follow this syntactically or otherwise. But what do you think it says about the president's leadership and, if I may, his fitness for office? RON ELVING, BYLINE: You don't have to watch a whole lot of cable news to see the replays of candidate Trump telling his rallies that Mexico would pay for the wall in no uncertain terms. His own campaign documents - this in print - discussed a $5 billion to $10 billion payment direct from the Mexican government as one of its goals. And, of course, that was never going to happen. And now the president says he was talking about a new trade deal that would be more favorable to the U.S. and that that would somehow pay for the wall and that that had been what he had in mind all along. And, Scott, if you can believe that, then maybe next week he could tell you that he never promised to build a wall at all. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Meanwhile, Robert Mueller's work on the Russia investigation goes on. Next week - confirmation hearings for William Barr to be attorney general. He'll be asked if he'll protect that investigation from interference, won't he? RON ELVING, BYLINE: Yes, he will. And the Mueller investigation has gone forward because the Justice Department has been led by people who believed it was legitimate and necessary. Mr. Barr has indicated he does not share all of their enthusiasm for the project to put it mildly. He has indicated he thinks parts of the report may need to be withheld from the public. And this week, the president has said much the same. So these hearings are going to be important, not just because Barr will be in - the question of whether or not he gets Senate confirmation but because he can be asked to pledge he will protect the investigation and release its report to the nation. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: In February, Michael Cohen, the president's former lawyer and fixer, testifies in front of Congress. Do we know what he has to tell? RON ELVING, BYLINE: Some of it, yes, with respect to the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and others. But there is a great deal more that this committee will want to know about work that Michael Cohen did for Donald Trump over a number of years, including contacts - possible contact - with Russians or their intermediaries. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: NPR's Ron Elving, thanks so much. RON ELVING, BYLINE: Thank you, Scott.

The longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history continues to dominate the news out of the nation's capital. But the Mueller investigation also looms over Washington, D.C.

Die längste teilweise Schließung der Regierung in der Geschichte der USA dominiert weiterhin die Nachrichten aus der Hauptstadt des Landes. Aber die Mueller-Untersuchung droht auch Washington, D.C.

美国历史上最长的政府部分停摆继续主导着美国首都的新闻。不过，对穆勒的调查也在华盛顿引起了关注。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And the new president of Brazil is finishing his first week on the job - Jair Bolsonaro, a retired army captain, member of his country's far-right. NPR's Philip Reeves has been following the first few days of his administration and joins us now from Rio. Phil, thanks so much for being with us. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: You're welcome. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What are among the first notable moves Bolsonaro has made his first few days in power? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, you know, he arrived in office, Scott, saying that he wanted to rid Brazil's government of socialist ideological bias. That's a reference, of course, to past leftist governments. Yet he and his ministers are very quickly imposing their own ideological stamp. Some of the evidence of this is wrapped up in the fine print. If you look at the way they're structuring new government departments, they appear to be downgrading the importance attached, for example, to climate change and to the promotion of gay rights and other issues, also. They've been kicking out large numbers of civil servants who are deemed to be leftists. And Bolsonaro's placed a government minister - a retired general - in charge of monitoring and supervising nongovernmental and international organizations, and that's causing some concern, too. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What about his policies on Indigenous Brazilians? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Well, this country has hundreds of thousands of Indigenous people who - under, you know, historical land rights, they own roughly 14 percent of the national territory. Like President Trump, Bolsonaro likes to tweet, and he's tweeted about how he wants them to integrate into the rest of Brazil. And he's making moves to make that happen. It's, again, fine-print stuff. There used to be a government agency in charge of demarcating Indigenous lands. Bolsonaro's transferred that task to the agricultural ministry. That's a ministry widely seen as under the sway of the powerful agribusiness lobby, which is, of course, hungry for land and for farming and mining and stuff. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Same-sex marriage has been legal in Brazil since 2013. But there is a lot of concern among LGBT Brazilians about this government, isn't there? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Yes, there is. There's a ministry here for women, family and human rights. And it turns out that LGBTQ Brazilians are not on the list of groups covered by that ministry's remit. That may not sound like that big a deal. But the minister in charge has said some stuff that's really setting alarm bells ringing here. She's a devout evangelical Christian and one of only two women, by the way, in the cabinet. And she has caused a stir by declaring that, henceforth in Brazil, boys wear blue, girls wear pink. That remark's aimed at the gay rights movement, obviously, which the Bolsonaro government sees as aligned to the left and accuses of undermining family values. People are having a lot of fun with this, by the way, on social media. And I imagine that, when Carnival comes, we'll see some entertainingly satirical costumes. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Yeah. Any changes foreseen in foreign policy? PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Yeah, very much so. I mean, Bolsonaro is a big fan of Donald Trump. And in his first interview since being sworn in, Bolsonaro said he's open to hosting a U.S. base - a military base in Brazil, which, if that ever happened, would be the first time since World War II. That's obviously a big change, geopolitically, in a region that historically has regarded Washington, you know, with suspicion. He's also strongly pro-Israel and plans to move Brazil's embassy to Jerusalem. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: He was elected overwhelmingly. Remind us why so many Brazilians love him. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: Their expectations are very high. There are tens of thousands of homicides here, Scott, every year. Crime's rampant, and so is corruption. People are desperate for a leader who will fix that. And they think his plans to widen public access greatly to firearms and to give the cops more scope for the use of lethal force - you know, think it's good. The other area where this government's already winning plaudits concerns the economy. There are some sweeping privatization programs and plans to streamline taxes and lower them. And that's making the markets very happy. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Philip Reeves in Rio. Thanks so much for being with us. PHILIP REEVES, BYLINE: You're welcome.

We have the latest on the big political changes taking shape in Brazil under President Jair Bolsonaro, who is in the first week of his new administration.

Wir haben das Neueste über die großen politischen Veränderungen in Brasilien unter Präsident Jair Bolsonaro, der in der ersten Woche seiner neuen Regierung steht.

巴西总统贾尔·博尔索纳罗在新政府就任刚刚一周时间，在他的领导下，国内正在发生重大政治变化，我们将为你带来最新消息。

ALEX COHEN, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Alex Cohen. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And I'm Madeleine Brand. Well, as many of you know, last week, NPR announced a series of layoffs and cutbacks to deal with a really serious budget shortfall. One of the programs among the cuts was ours. Day to Day will be going off the air in March. And we wanted to take a moment to recognize the huge and really, really, very gratifying outpouring of emails from our listeners. And here to help sort through some of them and answer some of the questions that you have is our letters guy - actually, you're much more than a letters guy, Steve. You're our senior producer, Steve Proffitt. Hi, Steve. STEVE PROFFITT: Hi, Madeleine. Hundreds of letters, scores of comments on our blog, Daydreaming, most of them - not all of them, but most of them - decrying our cancellation; many heaping praise on us, and thank you all for that. Many people wondered, is there something we can do to convince NPR to keep this program on the air? MADELEINE BRAND, host: All right. Inquiring minds, mine among them, want to know. Is there? STEVE PROFFITT: Well, I think the short answer is probably not. If you have five or ten million bucks lying around, then by all means, please give the bosses at NPR a call at your earliest convenience. STEVE PROFFITT: But NPR seems to have made its decision. MADELEINE BRAND, host: All right, so who should listeners go to? STEVE PROFFITT: Well, they could write to the NPR ombudsman through npr.org. Member stations decide what programming to air, so they could start at their local stations. MADELEINE BRAND, host: All right. And one of our loyal fans started a Facebook group. It's called Save NPR's Day to Day. STEVE PROFFITT: Yes. Save NPR's Day to Day. You can join that. But let's get to a few of the letters. MADELEINE BRAND, host: One of the favorites came from Alexandra Miriccinni(ph), who says she's an NPR kid who grew up listening to public radios. She's now in college, and she writes, It's three a.m. I have a 20-page paper to finish and three finals. But right now, all I can think about is keeping Day to Day on the air. I'll be your forever-unpaid intern any day. STEVE PROFFITT: Jim Campbell(ph) wrote us from Glenwood Springs, Colorado. He says, I listen to Day to Day each morning as I feed and tend my cows - I guess the cows listen, too - it brings the world to me, and the world will be poorer if Day to Day's not a part of it." MADELEINE BRAND, host: Janice Hersh(ph) of Beverly Hills, California writes, Four hours of "The Today Show," one with Cathy Lee, but no hours of Day to Day? Everything I know is wrong. STEVE PROFFITT: And Dolores Turin(ph) of North Providence, Rhode Island, is among the many, many people, Madeleine, who think you are the best interviewer in broadcasting. She writes, I used to send Katie Couric emails advising her to listen to Madeleine Brand for tips on asking questions that elicit a meaningful answer. MADELEINE BRAND, host: If I could only get Katie Couric's salary, or a tenth of it. All right, another thing these letters reveal is the number of folks who listen to us online or via our podcast. People scattered across the world wrote in. We got letters from Europe, Africa, Tokyo and even from Hanoi. STEVE PROFFITT: Yeah, Hanoi in Vietnam. Finally, many letters saw the cancellation of our program, and that of News & Notes, also produced here at NPR West, as a confirmation of a sort of East Coast-centricity, which they perceive in NPR's coverage. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Thank you to everyone who wrote us. It really, really helps, and I can say that I read every single email, and most of us on the staff did. STEVE PROFFITT: You can still write us. Either use the Contact Us link at our website, npr.org, or you can visit our blog. It's at npr.org/daydreaming. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And you can also give to your local station. STEVE PROFFITT: Remember, we'll still be around, cranking out a show for you each and every day until March 20th. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Senior producer and letters guy, Steve Proffitt. Thank you. STEVE PROFFITT: You're welcome, Madeleine.

We read from the huge stack of letters we received after last week's announcement that our show is going off the air in March. We hear from people all over the world, including dairy farmers and students who should have been studying.

Wir lesen die riesigen Stapel von Briefen, die wir erhalten haben, nachdem unsere Sendung im März der Ankündigung letzter Woche zufolge beendet wird. Wir erhalten die Briefe von Menschen auf der ganzen Welt, darunter Milchbauern und Studenten, die hätten studieren sollen.

自上周宣布节目将于三月停播后，我们收到了大量观众的来信。我们听到来自世界各地人们的心声，包括奶农和本该忙于学业的学生。

MADELEINE BRAND, host: From the studios of NPR West, this is Day to Day. I'm Madeleine Brand. ALEX COHEN, host: And I'm Alex Cohen. Coming up, we report on the weekly jobless numbers, and for us, it's a bit personal. MADELEINE BRAND, host: First, though, President-elect Barack Obama held a press conference today to announce many more cabinet appointments, among them former Senate Leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services. President-elect BARACK OBAMA: I've asked Tom to serve not just as my secretary of health and human services, but also of my White House Office of Health Reform. As such, he will be responsible not just for implementing our health-care plan, he will also be the lead architect of that plan. MADELEINE BRAND, host: With us now, NPR's Don Gonyea covering that press conference. And, Don, before we get to the Tom Daschle news, let's talk about what the president-elect said about the charges against Illinois Governor Blagojevich. DON GONYEA: That's right. People will recall that yesterday, after this story broke, the president-elect had a photo-op with former Vice President Al Gore. The topic there was supposed to be the environment. But he just made the briefest of statement there, basically saying that, you know, he was saddened and disappointed by the news out of the Illinois investigation against Blagojevich and that he had had no contact whatsoever with Blagojevich. DON GONYEA: But today, this was a press conference presumably to talk about the new health and human services secretary, Mr. Daschle. And of the four questions that the president-elect took, three of them were about the Blagojevich scandal, and he did kind of reiterate that he had nothing to do with any discussions, that there were no discussions, that he did not talk about the Senate seat. But give a listen to the president-elect. President-elect BARACK OBAMA: Let me say that I was as appalled and disappointed as anybody by the revelations earlier this week. I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. DON GONYEA: And the other thing that the president-elect said is that, for anybody on his team to have engaged in any kind of deal-making with Governor Blagojevich, he said that would have ran counter to what his entire presidential campaign was about. He could not say absolutely at this point that there was absolutely no contact between his team and the Blagojevich folks or the governor himself. DON GONYEA: He said they're going to look into what kind of contact there may have been and that they will release that in the coming days. The other thing he did is, he repeated his call that Blagojevich should step down. He said he just cannot serve as governor given what we have heard on those tapes, seen on those transcripts. MADELEINE BRAND, host: OK. And so now, let's get to that Tom Daschle news. I mean, big news that he will be the lead architect of the new health-care plan. What else did he say? DON GONYEA: Exactly. And they put this in the context of the national economy. Let's just give a listen again to the president-elect first. President-elect BARACK OBAMA: Some may ask how, at this moment of economic challenge, we can afford to invest in reforming our health-care system. And I ask a different question. I ask, how can we afford not to? DON GONYEA: As Mr. Obama said so many times over the course of the campaign, there are 45 million people without health care. But again, putting it in the broader context, he said that so many businesses are in trouble now or on the brink. There are foreclosures, there are bankruptcies being filed because of health care costs. And he said, until we finally get our hands on some sort of meaningful national health-care reform, then we cannot address the larger problems of the economy. MADELEINE BRAND, host: OK. NPR's Don Gonyea covering the president-elect. Thanks, Don. DON GONYEA: OK. My pleasure.

President-elect Barack Obama discussed the future of America's health care system at a press conference Thursday. Obama nominated former Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle as secretary of Health and Human Services and Steven Chu as Energy Secretary.

Der designierte US-Präsident Barack Obama diskutierte am Donnerstag auf einer Pressekonferenz über die Zukunft des amerikanischen Gesundheitssystems. Obama nominierte den ehemaligen Mehrheitsführer des Senats, Tom Daschle, als Minister für das Gesundheits- und Sozialwesen und Steven Chu als Energieminister.

当选总统奥巴马在星期四的新闻发布会上讨论了美国医疗保健系统的未来。奥巴马提名前参议院多数党领袖汤姆·达施勒为卫生与公众服务部部长，朱棣文为能源部部长。

CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: So, how was your workout? How'd you sleep? How far did you get in that one book? Those questions were all, at one point, pretty general questions - no longer, though. I don't answer: good, I slept well and about halfway. I say I did 1.9 miles in 27 minutes. I got four hours of deep REM-cycle sleep, and I'm 64 percent finished with that book. New apps and gadgets allow us to keep track of every minute detail of our daily movements and activities. It's a practice known as self-tracking to find out quantified selves. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: So, self-trackers out there, we want to hear from you. What have you learned by tracking your self? Give us a call. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Holly Finn joins us now. She's a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. In her weekly "Marvels" column, she writes about how science and technology are changing our lives. She joins us from member station KQED in San Francisco. Holly, thanks so much for being on the program. HOLLY FINN: Hi, Celeste. Nice to be here. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: You use a self-tracker, right? HOLLY FINN: I do. I just signed up. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: How did you sleep last night? HOLLY FINN: I can tell you exactly. I slept eight hours and 21 minutes, six and a half of which were deep sleep, and only one and a half of which were light sleep. And I fell asleep in 26 minutes, and I woke up zero times. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: So what... HOLLY FINN: I'm quite proud. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: What does this tell you? How does this - how does that actually help you, having that knowledge? HOLLY FINN: Yeah. To me, I think the thing is it's the nuanced knowledge that's interesting, knowing that I slept eight hours. I could have slept eight crappy hours, and I would feel crappy and not understand why. Today, I can understand precisely why. Most of that - if it was light sleep, then there's my reason, and therefore I can slightly adjust, one hopes, my behavior towards others based on the fact that I'm a little peaky today. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: So what does this term, the quantified self? Is it just... HOLLY FINN: Yeah. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: ...you know, completely, you know, anal attention to every single thing that we do, every breath we take? HOLLY FINN: I think it can be as pedantic as you make it, really. The term quantified self was coined by a couple of journalists five years ago, a couple of Wired journalists. It's not a new notion, but they put a term to it. This has been around for literally hundreds and hundreds of years. In the 1600s, a man called Sanctorius of Padua, who was a researcher into metabolism, actually worked in what he called a weighing chair, which weighed everything that he ate, everything that came into his body and everything that left his body... CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Oh, yeah. (unintelligible) HOLLY FINN: ...because he was attached to a calibrated scale, you know. So this isn't brand-new knowledge. Clearly, if he'd, you know, he'd gotten out of the chair, maybe he wouldn't have studied it so much. But it's not a brand-new science. It's just that technology has supercharged it. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Well, I mean, I have to say, I'm a self-tracker myself. I use two of them. I use a BodyMedia armband, and then I also have the Nike FuelBand... HOLLY FINN: Yeah. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: ...partially because I'm training for some bike races. And it's helpful... HOLLY FINN: Yes. HOLLY FINN: ...information to me. HOLLY FINN: Yes. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: What are the most popular - I mean, are most people going as detailed as I? Or are there - people just kind of sticking their toes in? HOLLY FINN: I think there's such a spectrum, certainly, for folks like you, the kind of - the athletic tracking and the ability to magnify performance. That - I mean, that's hugely valuable, just giving you the knowledge in what areas, what sort of things you can tweak in order to do better. HOLLY FINN: But the spectrum runs for - from everything from something recently introduced at CES last week in Vegas, the Happy Fork, which is a fork that actually tracks how much you eat and buzzes if it feels like you're eating too much. For me, something like that has crossed the line from helpful to slightly judgmental. I don't want to worry what my utensils think of me. But on the other end of the spectrum, our health giving apps and devices - things like, for instance, an asthma inhaler that is fitted with a GPS so that every time a person or, for instance, a child has an asthma attack, it logs where and when and possibly what air conditions, et cetera, are in place at the time. And over, you know, you can track that and see trends, and that's pretty interesting. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: And the CES you're talking about is the Consumer Electronics Show that happens every January in Las Vegas. But, I mean, the thing that's amazing to me is that one of the reasons there's so much research going into this and so many products is it - it's making money. I mean, people are buying this. There's tons of people using their iPhones, their Androids to lose weight - to keep track of everything they do. HOLLY FINN: Well, that's actually how - I actually started - I made a bet last summer with a friend that whoever - whichever of us lost 15 pounds first got a free dinner anywhere in the world. And I'm not a competitive person, like, athletically, but I like my dinner and I respect a bet. So I signed on to something called MyFitnessPal, a free app, on my iPhone, which logs your food and literally the first day I was on it, I ran out of allotted calories by 1:30 PM, which told me... CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Oh, wow. Kind of an eye opener. HOLLY FINN: Yes, told me something about my eating habits, and I've now - it told me yesterday I'd logged on for 160 days in a row, and I've lost 20 pounds. And it was incredibly helpful as, what I call a personal lie detection device. We're in this universe of social media and self-branding and a little bit of posturing, I think we can all agree. HOLLY FINN: And these devices actually help us not lie to ourselves, and I imagine that that might help us not lie to each other as well. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Well, we're going to talk more about that in a moment. But let me read a couple of emails from listeners. This is Linda in Portland, who says, I've learned I don't get nearly enough sleep during my workweek by using my favorite app, Sleep Cycle. I also use an app to map my exercise. And then Gayle in Buffalo, New York, writes, I've been using Fitbit for a year, have increased my steps from 5,000 to 13,000 a day and now climb 30 flights of stairs daily as a goal when I use to avoid wherever I could. I'm 69, I found that I can do a lot more than I thought possible to keep fit. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: And if you are a self-tracker of any kind out there, we want to hear from you. What have you learned? Our number is 800-989-8255, or you can email us like they did at talk@npr.org. This concept of honesty is really interesting to me. I just read the research that said dieting by Twitter is more effective than regular dieting. You can do everything else the same, but if you're tweeting about your weight loss, you'll lose more. HOLLY FINN: Yeah. That makes sense to me. Again, I think it's probably universal and it's probably timeless. But given that we have these tools at our fingertips now, we carry our phones with us wherever we go, we're always logged in, why not use that for good as well as possibly less good? And I think the peer pressure can also be a positive as well as a negative. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: And you're not lying about it. HOLLY FINN: Yes, essentially. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: And yet, Holly, and yet isn't it also part of sort of the vanity of the human condition? Aren't we completely self-absorbed enough already? HOLLY FINN: I think that it's a really, really good question. If you go back and look at, as I did, Gary Wolf was one of the journalists who coined this term quantified self. He gave a TED talk about it a couple of years back. And it was fascinating that he listed his caffeine intake, his sleep, all the data, his heart rate - that he's self-tracking had provided. And then he felt he had to say, quote, "and my score on the narcissism personality index is a reassuring .31." HOLLY FINN: ...as if to make sure we all understood that this wasn't about that. I think, again, it's probably a self-selecting device. If you tend towards narcissism, it will make you more narcissistic. If not, however, I think insight into self can lead to insight into others. I spoke to Yves Behar who's the designer of the Jawbone Up, which is what I wear and I'm fascinated by. And he made the point that actually if you are, like he is, a person who runs a company and you notice, given your sleep last night, you're a little tired and slower today and perhaps you haven't taken the right number of steps, you look around your office - same is true for everyone else - you might have meetings. You might get everyone out for lunch. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Oh, interesting. HOLLY FINN: And so it could be slightly more broad than just benefiting you. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Well, let's take a couple of calls. So here's Annemarie(ph) in Weddington, North Carolina. And, Annemarie, you're actually a fitness trainer, so this is - seems to be very useful. ANNEMARIE: Absolutely. 100 percent. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: How do you use it? ANNEMARIE: Yeah. Well, I use it mostly to track rides - and I do a lot of rides and runs with beginners as a triathlon training coach. So I try to really encourage them to use it as a motivational tool, you know, see how far you can go and also a lot of these new entries coming, how many calories I've burned anytime that I'm training for something like a marathon or triathlon. But I also tell them use it to also, in some ways, let your self off the hook. I know that it seems counterintuitive, but I work with a lot of cyclists and runners that are incredibly motivated and often push themselves to injury, or push themselves past what they need to. So I say use that heart rate monitor as a way to also let you back off. So if you're feeling bad, you're in mile 18, you know, and you see that your heart rate is a little high, back off. Don't push through that. There's no need for that. You know, you want to live to fight another day. I really use it, also, as a tool to allow people to back off from exercise when they need to. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: OK. Thank you very much. That's Annemarie, calling from North Carolina. And we also have a call from Bryan(ph) in Cincinnati, Ohio. And, Bryan, you're a physician? BRYAN: Yeah, a psychiatrist actually (unintelligible) psychiatrist and... CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: And you use a pedometer. BRYAN: Yeah, it sounds kind of pedestrian with all these quantifiable devices. But I asked my - my New Year's resolution was - I'm not overweight, I'm thin and I'm very active, but I don't like to sit at work. And I'm trying to encourage my patients not to be sedentary. So I asked my kids, where's that pedometer that I used to have years ago? And they said, Dad, you don't need a pedometer. Just get an app on your iPhone. So I did that, and the last few weeks I've been standing at work and on a portable stair-stepper, which I've jerry-rigged in such a way that I can have a desk that's elevated and I can enter data as I interview patients. BRYAN: And I take my patients for a walks to try to show them that human beings are, by nature, on-the-go and it's more healthy to be moving around. Even with kids with ADHD, I, you know, encourage them to move and to be active so that - I think it's therapeutic. But then I set example in the office. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Well, that is Dr. Bryan in Cincinnati, Ohio with a little helpful advice for anybody. And we're speaking with Holly Finn who's a columnist for The Wall Street Journal. What's the danger here? I mean, besides becoming narcissistic, I guess, if you have a tendency - can you just become too focused on this? HOLLY FINN: Sure. It's interesting, though, the callers, both of them were talking about slight changes... CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: Yeah. HOLLY FINN: Which I think is one of the keys here. Everyone who talks about changing your life, talks about doing it in tiny steps - that, first of all, is what I think the quantified self is about, slight modifications. But I think if I could see a danger - and I'm a big fan of this and I tend to think on the positive in general - but I think if there is a danger, it's who owns this data, who'd you give your data to, who do you share it with? HOLLY FINN: And as we've all learned, in the last few years, we need to be slightly more careful than perhaps we have been. We get so excited about all - the potential of stuff like this that we need to understand - for instance, insurance companies. I'm sure they'd be particularly interested in how many steps we take, the asthma, you know, inhaler, you know, I mentioned or, you know heart rate information, blood glucose levels. All of those things are so personal, I think - I can speak for myself, I certainly wouldn't share this with any - I don't share my data publicly, and I don't share... CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: I'm sure many people don't want to share that either. Holly Finn is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal in her weekly Marvels column, she writes about how science and technology are changing our lives. She joined us from member station KQED in San Francisco. Thank you so much for being on TALK OF THE NATION. What's the name again of the device that you use? HOLLY FINN: It's wonderful. The Jawbone Up. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: OK. The Jawbone Up. There's tons of them up there, Holly, thank you so much. HOLLY FINN: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. CELESTE HEADLEE, HOST: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

How was your workout? Did you sleep well? How far are you in that book? These questions used to be general queries. New apps and gadgets allow us to keep track of every minute detail of our daily movements and activities — a practice known as self-tracking. Holly Finn, columnist, Wall Street Journal

Wie war dein Training? Hast Du gut geschlafen? Wie weit bist du mit diesem Buch? Früher waren diese Fragen allgemeine Abfragen. Neue Apps und Gadgets ermöglichen es uns, jedes kleinste Detail unserer täglichen Bewegungen und Aktivitäten zu verfolgen – eine Praxis, die als Self-Tracking bekannt ist. Holly Finn, Kolumnistin, Wall Street Journal

你的锻炼怎么样?你睡得好吗?那本书你读得有多深?这些问题过去是一般的查询。新的应用程序和小工具可以让我们记录下日常运动和活动的每一分钟细节——这种做法被称为自我跟踪。霍莉·芬恩，《华尔街日报》专栏作家。

SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: The issue of reparations is back in the news. Democratic presidential hopefuls are talking about it. Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee proposed legislation this year that would create a commission to study reparations. And this week, Senator Chuck Schumer said he'd support that bill. Proponents of the concept argue that reparations are not just about slavery but also injustices black Americans have endured since the Jim Crow era and beyond. One of those injustices includes the losses of enormous amounts of property to a form of land ownership called heirs property, which some economists say has cost black Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in lost land over the past century. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: Joining us now to talk about this is reporter Lizzie Presser, who investigated heirs property in a collaboration between ProPublica and The New Yorker. She followed the case of Melvin Davis and Licurtis Reels, who spent eight years in jail fighting for the land they call home. And she joins us now from our New York bureau. Hi, Lizzie. Welcome. LIZZIE PRESSER: Hi, Sarah. Thanks for having me. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: One of the people you spoke to in your reporting called heirs property the worst problem you never heard of. Can you tell us more about what it is? LIZZIE PRESSER: So heirs property is a form of ownership. And essentially what happens is that someone dies without a will, and their descendants inherit an interest in the land. So instead of owning a physical piece of it, they're owning a share, kind of like holding stock in a company. And as that land is passed down through generations, that can mean that dozens or hundreds of family members co-own a piece of land. And it creates a very unstable form of ownership. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: And why is it structured that way? LIZZIE PRESSER: Intestate succession is what it's called legally, and essentially that's just what will happen if you die without a will. And so families often believed, actually, that if they owned land in this way, they were protecting it from being taken from them. But in reality, it made their ownership very vulnerable to takings. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: In the heart of your investigation is the case of the Reels family, two brothers - Licurtis Reels and Melvin Davis in Carteret County, N.C. Tell us a little bit about how their story starts and then how it starts to unravel. LIZZIE PRESSER: So Melvin and Licurtis's great-grandfather bought 65 acres in 1911. And in 1970, their grandfather Mitchell Reels died without a will. What ended up happening was a distant uncle who hadn't lived on the property in two decades used an arcane law called the Torrens law to carve out the most valuable slice of the property right on the river. And this is a family of shrimpers and crabbers and fishers. And so that's - that wasn't just the most valuable property in terms of its value to sell, it was also the way in which these men made their money and fed their community. Once he was able to take that land, he very quickly sold it off to developers. And that's really when the trouble started for the Reels family. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: And so the two brothers get their day in court in 2011. What happens next? LIZZIE PRESSER: The brothers had been occupying the waterfront. They didn't really understand that their uncle had taken it. And, in fact, they lived with the belief that the land was theirs, and they weren't going to let go. So even when there were court orders that required the brothers to remove their homes, they refused. In 2011, they went to court thinking that they were just going to argue their case again. But the judge found them guilty of civil contempt, and he ordered them sent to jail. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: You document multiple ways, both judicial and extrajudicial, in which black Americans have had property taken from them. I want to turn to another legal mechanism you describe that really seems to allow developers to take advantage of heirs property landowners. It's called partition action. Can you explain that? LIZZIE PRESSER: So in a partition action, any single heir to the property or a speculator who buys the interest of a single heir can go to the court and ask for a sale of the entire property. So imagine if you have 15 relatives, and one person says, I want to sell. And then they get to go to the court and say, I want to sell, and the court says, sure, you can. And everyone then is dispossessed. This is what was happening and continues to happen across the South. But in many cases, what you see are speculators, companies, developers who buy off interests of individual heirs and then bring it to the court. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: And if I could just ask one last sort of bigger-picture question - as you hear candidates in the 2020 campaign talking about issues of racial justice and reparations, do you think this issue of heirs property, though it's less understood, do you think it helps to make that case? LIZZIE PRESSER: Absolutely. I think what I was hoping to convey with this piece is that black families had very good reason to be suspicious of white southern courts under Jim Crow. And as a result, we have seen this unstable form of land ownership take hold across the South. And it's a very significant example of how racial discrimination and segregation has fueled a legal system that is stacked against African American landowners. SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST: That's ProPublica Lizzie Presser. Lizzie, thanks so much for joining us. LIZZIE PRESSER: Thanks for having me.

NPR's Sarah McCammon speaks to ProPublica reporter Lizzie Presser about heirs property, a form of land ownership that has cost black Americans billions of dollars in land loss.

Sarah McCammon von NPR spricht mit der ProPublica-Reporterin Lizzie Presser über Erbeigentum, eine Form des Landbesitzes, die schwarze Amerikaner Milliarden von Dollar an Landverlust gekostet hat.

NPR的莎拉·麦克卡蒙就继承人财产（一种让美国黑人损失数十亿美元土地的土地所有权形式）对ProPublica的记者莉齐·普雷瑟进行了采访。

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: President Trump is doubling down on racist language he used to attack four Democratic congresswomen, comments that have been widely condemned by Democrats and by some Republicans. Trump tweeted this weekend that the four lawmakers, who are all women of color and who are all U.S. citizens, that they should, quote, "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came." MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Now, today the president pushed on, saying... PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And all I'm saying that if they're not happy here, they can leave. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Ayesha Rascoe joins me now from the White House. And, Ayesha, a little bit more detail if you would on what exactly the president had to say today. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Well, he defended his tweets. And he even went further in some ways, basically arguing that he believes these women do not love their country. And he continued to say that they should get out of the country, that they should leave. Trump was asked specifically about white nationalists finding common cause with him on these statements. And this is what he said. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me. And all I'm saying - they want to leave, they can leave. Now, it doesn't say leave forever. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Just to be clear, none of these lawmakers who Trump is talking about are saying that they want to leave this country or that they do not love this country. In fact, they're saying the opposite. They have opposed Trump on many of his policies. But Trump, as a private citizen, opposed former President Obama and his administration's actions. And Trump ran on the idea that America was having all these problems and that he was going to make it great again. Trump has been very critical of the U.S. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Right. He is criticizing people for doings things that he himself has done. I mean, it feels important, Ayesha, to set all of this current controversy in a broader context, which is that Trump's language on race has been racist before. From the day he announced his campaign four years ago, there's a pattern. There's a throughline. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: It's a part of a long pattern. When he announced that he was running for president, he talked about some Mexicans, calling them rapists. He said, even before he became president, during the campaign, he talked about a Mexican judge and said he couldn't fairly decide his case. And, of course, he made a name for himself before he became president by questioning former President Obama whether he was born in the United States. And his language about black lawmakers and black public figures has also raised questions about the way that he's insulted them and their intelligence. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: So we heard from these four lawmakers earlier today. They held an afternoon press conference on Capitol Hill. Here's a little bit of what Congresswoman Ilhan Omar had to say. ILHAN OMAR: Every single statement that we make is from a place of extreme love for every single person in this country. It is part of the mandate of why we ran for office and why we got elected. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: And as I mentioned, Ayesha, Democrats have been very quick to condemn the president's comments here. What about Republicans? AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: So Republicans were mostly quiet yesterday, but you do have a number of Republicans at this point speaking up. You had Republican Lindsey Graham, who said the president should aim higher. I guess aim higher with his critiques. But he then also called these Democrats communists, so that was Lindsey Graham. And then you had Michigan lawmaker Fred Upton. He tweeted that he was appalled by the president's tweets and said that there's no excuse for this. So the question is, what happens next? - and whether any of these Republicans who are complaining about Trump's comments - whether they'll take any more action beyond saying that they disapprove of what Trump has said. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: Thanks, Ayesha. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Thank you. MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST: NPR's Ayesha Rascoe.

President Trump's tweets that used racist language about Democratic members of Congress have again brought the focus back to how Trump views non-white Americans.

Präsident Trumps Tweets, in denen er sich rassistisch über demokratische Kongressabgeordnete geäußert hat, haben den Fokus wieder darauf gelenkt, wie Trump nicht-weiße Amerikaner sieht.

特朗普总统的推文使用了针对民主党国会议员的种族主义语言，再次将人们的注意力带回到特朗普如何看待美国非白人。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: President Trump's nearly week-long attack on four Democratic lawmakers of color has brought his re-election strategy into focus. He is counting on overwhelming support among working-class white voters. This is a gamble in a very diverse country. Not so many years ago, it seemed an almost-impossible task. But NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis reports it could work. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole was part of a small group of Republicans who broke ranks this week to criticize President Trump. He was personally offended by the president's racist tweets telling minority lawmakers to go back where they came from. TOM COLE: The point is that's not an appropriate sentiment, and I hope it doesn't spread. And I hope it's discouraged by any responsible Republican. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: That doesn't mean he thinks it's going to hurt the party down the ballot next year. TOM COLE: But do I think that we're going to lose ground in the House because of it? Probably not. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Republicans have been warning each other for years, most famously in a 2013 autopsy ordered by the Republican National Committee, that if they don't do more to expand the GOP's appeal to women, young people and minorities, they're headed for ruin. Indiana University professor Bernard Fraga studies racial politics. And he says that might come true one day - but not right now. BERNARD FRAGA: I think we're talking about, frankly, a generation or more before the current configuration of support for different parties by race starts hurting Republicans. Even small gains among white voters by Republicans in future elections can more than compensate for the demographic shift we're seeing among eligible voters. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Fraga says Trump's politics further polarize the country and tears at the sense of any linked fate among Americans. But it can still be a path to win. BERNARD FRAGA: White voters are still crucial to election outcomes and will be for many election cycles to come. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Democrats like New Mexico congressman Ben Ray Lujan say Republicans are taking a huge risk with this strategy. BEN RAY LUJAN: If we saw the numbers that we did in 2018 in a midterm, I can't imagine the increase that we're going to see in a presidential year in 2020, especially when the president is making race such an important issue. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Lujan was the architect of the 2018 House Democratic takeover. Their majority was delivered by record turnout in the most racially diverse electorate ever. Even after that, Lujan concedes Trump's racial politics could work in 2020 battlegrounds. And he says Democrats can't assume otherwise. BEN RAY LUJAN: I make no mistake in believing that Donald Trump could be reelected. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Ohio Republican Steve Stivers was in charge of the House Republican campaign operation last year. He also condemned Trump's tweets this week, but he downplayed the president's potential for long-term damage to the party's appeal beyond white Americans. STEVE STIVERS: Presidents become dominating figures inside their party for a period of time, but that period of time is limited. And when that period of time is over, there is a new defining personality in the party. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Republican strategist Brian Walsh represents the wing of the party that is concerned about Trump's legacy, not just with minorities but also college-educated white voters, who are leaving the party in the Trump era exactly because of things like what happened this week. BRIAN WALSH: To me, it's the longer-term message we're sending to immigrants and people of color that you're not welcome in our party. That should be very troubling because, like I said, it's going to be whites who are the minority. I mean, maybe not in five - you know, not in five years or in 10 years, but like, the math is what it is. The country is changing. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: In other words, that 2013 RNC autopsy wasn't wrong. It's just not right - yet. SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Susan Davis, NPR News, the Capitol.

This week proved President Trump is doubling down on his support among working class, white voters ahead of 2020. It's a risky political strategy, but it could be enough to deliver his reelection.

Diese Woche hat bewiesen, dass Präsident Trump im Hinblick auf 2020 seine Unterstützung bei weißen Wählern aus der Arbeiterklasse verdoppelt. Es ist eine riskante politische Strategie, aber sie könnte ausreichen, um seine Wiederwahl zu sichern.

本周特朗普总统在工人阶级和白人选民中的支持率在2020年之前翻倍。这是一个冒险的政治策略，但足以让他连任。

NOEL KING, HOST: An outbreak of Ebola is taking a terrible toll in the Democratic Republic of Congo. More than 1,600 people have died, and 12 new cases are being reported every day. Now the World Health Organization says this is an international health emergency. David Gressly is the U.N.'s Ebola emergency response coordinator. He's on the ground in the D.R.C now. He's been working with the WHO and other organizations and governments to stop the spread of this outbreak. Good morning, Mr. Gressly. DAVID GRESSLY: Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: So the WHO had the opportunity to declare this Ebola outbreak a global health emergency a couple times. They did not. But now they have. What does that do for your efforts to stop the virus from spreading? DAVID GRESSLY: Well, I think it highlights to everyone in the region and internationally the seriousness of the outbreak here. It's been going on now for 15 months. It was only discovered 12 months ago, but it's been going on for 15 months. And we're seeing infections move into Goma more recently. But we had cases going into Uganda and another case getting close to the border of South Sudan. So while it's largely confined to the area in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, it keeps moving out to different areas and always a risk for a new chain of transmission to start. So I think that's where the real threat and concern is, that it could go much further than it has up until now. NOEL KING, HOST: Well, yeah. Let me ask you about the city of Goma because we have the first case confirmed there. Goma is a Congolese city on the border with Rwanda. About a million people live there. It's a big place. How much of a problem is this? DAVID GRESSLY: Well, it will be a problem if there's a continuation of the transmission from the case that came to Goma. Obviously, a lot of effort has just been done over the last 48 hours to try to ensure that there's no further transmission from the patient who came into Goma. A lot of contact tracing and vaccination of those who were in contact, not only in Goma but on the path that he took from Beni-Butembo all the way into Goma. So that seems to be going quite well. It's not enough to guarantee there won't be further transmission. DAVID GRESSLY: But if there were a further transmission, it's a large city. It has access. It's got an international airport. It's got access throughout the Congo. It's a busy airport there. And it's a big commercial center. And of course, there's a lot of movement across the border into Rwanda and into East Africa. So it remains a threat if it were to be established in Goma. But of course, as I said, we're doing everything we can to make sure that that doesn't happen, that the transmission is stopped with that patient. NOEL KING, HOST: I want to ask you about this vaccine that you mentioned. I know that it has had some success in slowing the outbreak. Do all of the areas affected have access to that vaccine? DAVID GRESSLY: Absolutely. What is happening is each time there's a case then those who have been in contact with that patient - family members, health workers - are vaccinated, offered the opportunity to vaccinate. Nobody's forced to take the vaccination. And secondly, there's what's called a fire - a ring system that's put around the cities of vaccination to vaccinate people more broadly to try to slow the movement to other parts of the country. And that has been, I think, successful, not in eradicating but containing the virus into the general area that it's been for the last 12 months. NOEL KING, HOST: In the seconds we have left, how much longer do you think it'll be before this outbreak is contained? DAVID GRESSLY: It will take a long time to really see this through. Even if we get down to zero cases, the possibility of new cases coming up is real because it stays in people's blood, and you can get new transmission. NOEL KING, HOST: David Gressly, U.N.'s Ebola emergency response coordinator. DAVID GRESSLY: Thank you.

NPR's Noel King talks to David Gressly, the U.N.'s Ebola Emergency Response Coordinator, about the World Health Organization declaring Ebola an international health emergency in the Congo.

Noel King von NPR spricht mit David Gressly, dem Ebola-Notfallkoordinator der Vereinten Nationen, über die Erklärung von Ebola zum internationalen Gesundheitsnotfall im Kongo durch die Weltgesundheitsorganisation.

就世界卫生组织宣布埃博拉为刚果的国际紧急卫生事件，NPR的诺埃尔·金采访了联合国埃博拉紧急反应协调员大卫·格雷斯利。

NOEL KING, HOST: Good morning. I'm Noel King, with the story of a Missouri woman who refused to be a victim. Danielle Reno's car was stolen, along with her credit cards and her phone, which were inside. She called the police, but she also tracked the thief by watching where her cards and phone were being used. Following a tip from a gas station attendant, Reno headed to Applebee's. She snuck into the parking lot, stole her car back, then called the police, who I imagine were pretty impressed.

Danielle Reno called police after her car was stolen. She also tracked the thief by watching where her credit cards were being used. She found the thief, stole her car back and called police again.

Danielle Reno rief die Polizei, nachdem ihr Auto gestohlen wurde. Sie verfolgte den Dieb auch, indem sie beobachtete, wo ihre Kreditkarten verwendet wurden. Sie fand den Dieb, stahl ihr Auto zurück und rief erneut die Polizei.

丹妮尔·里诺在车被偷后报了警。她还通过观察信用卡的使用地点来追踪小偷。她找到了小偷，偷回了她的车，并再次报警。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: A local journalist covering the governor's race in Mississippi has encountered an obstacle, and that obstacle has become a national news story. Republican Robert Foster refused to let reporter Larrison Campbell follow him for a day on the campaign trail unless she brought along a male colleague. Earlier today, Foster explained his decision to NPR. ROBERT FOSTER: Perception is reality in this world. And I did not want there to be a perception that I was riding with another female and that something was - promiscuous going on or anything like that. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Now let's hear from the reporter, Larrison Campbell of Mississippi Today. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Welcome. LARRISON CAMPBELL: Thank you so much for having me, Ari. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: You've covered Robert Foster before. He's a state representative. You actually broke the story that he was running for governor. So were you surprised when he said you could not shadow his campaign without a male colleague? LARRISON CAMPBELL: Oh, I was completely surprised. I mean, it was so out of left field. I kind of didn't think it was going to be real. So, you know, my editor and I talked about it. We thought it was a pretty sexist request, so we turned him down. LARRISON CAMPBELL: And we said, but look, you know, if you're concerned about the appearance of impropriety, I'll wear my press badge all day. You know, like, I won't, like, allow myself to be photographed sitting next to you. I assumed that that would be OK. And they actually drew a very bright line. So neither one of us were sort of willing to step over that. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: He says he's protecting his reputation. In that interview he did with NPR earlier today, he told us people make assumptions. ROBERT FOSTER: With the #MeToo movement especially, there's an opportunity there. I'm not going to ever put myself in a position where a female could come back and say that I made advances on her or I tried to assault her when there's no witness there to say that that did not happen. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So I hear your reaction there. LARRISON CAMPBELL: Yeah. I mean, like, can we just dismantle the sexism behind this right now? Let's talk about the perception of impropriety, you know, this idea that if a woman is photographed with a man, it could be perceived as, you know, an inappropriate relationship. Well, first of all, that only happens if you see this reporter who's doing her job as a sexual object first and a reporter second. That's what he's saying. LARRISON CAMPBELL: And second of all - I spoke to him earlier about this, and he had this line. He said, my truck - which is what we would have been riding in - my rules. That's kind of how he laid it out there. Well, it's his truck and his rules. It's also his problem. Like, he's the one who's uncomfortable here. And putting the burden on me to bring along a male chaperone so he feels comfortable, I mean, if that's not sexism, I'm not sure what is. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: He describes this as the Billy Graham rule. It's also been called the Mike Pence rule after the vice president. On Twitter, Foster described the rule as something he and his wife had agreed to, quote, to "avoid any situation that may evoke suspicion or compromise of our marriage." Then he said, I'm sorry Ms. Campbell does not share these views, but my decision was out of respect of my wife. How do you respond to that? LARRISON CAMPBELL: I mean, again, you're putting this on women, you know. You're saying my wife needs this to feel comfortable. I mean, what he's saying is, you know, he has this value system, and it doesn't jibe with the current workplace dynamics which are that women are, you know, capable of and do as much as men. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Have you heard of any male journalists being denied access to a powerful woman under similar circumstances? LARRISON CAMPBELL: That's a great question. No, I haven't. I mean, think about it. Our state treasurer is a woman. Her name is Lynn Fitch. And she's running for attorney general right now. And I cannot imagine how people would react if she said to one of my male colleagues, I'm sorry, you can't ride along with me unless you bring a woman along. I mean, people would say, you're not fit for the job. LARRISON CAMPBELL: And honestly, is this candidate fit for the job? Can he be a governor? You know, look at our current governor. Some of - his top policy director, his top attorney, they're both women. Is somebody capable of governing a state if they can't be alone in a room with a woman? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Do you think this experience makes it tougher for you to keep following this story and covering him as a part of your beat? LARRISON CAMPBELL: I sure hope not. Look. It is strange to be on this side of the story. But, I mean, the fact is this is my job. I'm supposed to cover politicians. And, you know, one of the reasons that we decided to run a story as opposed to just letting this happen, you know, this is a revealing thing about this candidate. And it's a weird turn that this campaign took, but it is the evolution of this campaign. And I plan to stay on the story. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Larrison Campbell of the nonprofit digital news outlet Mississippi Today, thanks for speaking with us today. LARRISON CAMPBELL: Thanks so much for having me, Ari.

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Mississippi Today reporter Larrison Campbell about being denied a ride along with gubernatorial candidate Robert Foster without a male colleague present.

Ari Shapiro von NPR spricht mit der Reporterin von Mississippi Today, Larrison Campbell, darüber, dass ihr eine Mitfahrt mit dem Gouverneurskandidaten Robert Foster ohne einen männlichen Kollegen verweigert wurde.

NPR 的艾莉夏皮罗和《今日密西西比》的记者拉利森坎贝尔谈到了她在没有男同事在场的情况下，被拒绝和州长候选人罗伯特·弗罗斯特一起乘车的事情。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The number of migrants taken into custody at the southern border has dropped significantly. New numbers from the Department of Homeland Security out this week show a 28% fall in the number of apprehensions in June compared to May. A reporting team from NPR has been on the border this week in the cities of El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico. And they've learned that one of the main reasons for this reduction is the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy. Now, under that policy, migrants are now waiting in Mexico for their hearings in U.S. immigration court. Morning Edition host Noel King has been leading this coverage. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Hey there, Noel. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Hi, Audie. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Now, I understand you have been looking at how this immigration crisis is affecting people on the border. So far, what have you found? NOEL KING, BYLINE: Well, what I found is that this is a very hard situation for everyone involved and that it is taking a real psychological toll on people here. So, Audie, let me start with the migrants. These are people who crossed into the U.S. and then were sent to Mexico, even though they are not Mexican. So I traveled to Juarez to meet some of them. This is not a safe city. People told me they've been robbed. They've been chased. They've been threatened by cartel members, and a lot of them are living in conditions that are just appalling. NOEL KING, BYLINE: You know, I walked into a hotel in downtown Juarez. I'd been told that migrants were staying there. They were staying there. There were 20 people who were sleeping on mattresses on the floor in the basement. It was dark down there. It was hard to breathe. I talked to a 12-year-old boy. His name is Julio. And he told me, I left Honduras with my mom because a gang was trying to recruit me. I was really scared. Now, this is a kid, Audie. And he really believed that he was going to get asylum in the United States. JULIO: (Speaking Spanish). NOEL KING, BYLINE: So you can hear this kid just broke down. He said, "when we got to the United States, the border agents didn't even ask us anything about ourselves. They just sent us to Mexico, and I don't know what to do." AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: There are concerns, clearly, about the emotional health of a child in that situation. But I understand you saw that not just with migrants. NOEL KING, BYLINE: No, I saw this with lawyers too. These are people who are working for nonprofits, so they're not doing this for money. This is their life. This is their calling. That's how a lot of them, you know, define it. The Remain in Mexico policy has really complicated things. So, Audie, imagine that you are a lawyer in El Paso. Your client is living in Mexico. This is a logistical nightmare. There is something like 9,000 migrants who have been sent to Juarez, and lawyers who represent them pro bono say that in total, they've been able to take on a few dozen cases. So this week, I talked to three attorneys - Melissa Lopez, Linda Rivas and Taylor Levy. Here they are. MELISSA LOPEZ: I feel very much at this point like I'm on the brink of burnout. And, you know, I've been not sleeping for a little while now. And I can't see my heart giving up, but I could see my body saying enough is enough. LINDA RIVAS: How much longer can we do this? And are we really making a difference? TAYLOR LEVY: I'm definitely having trouble sleeping. I mean, it's incredibly difficult. It's - sometimes, it just feels absolutely unbearable. It feels like we can never do enough. We're trying to do just this little amount that we can, but the need is staggering. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Noel, given the backlog of immigration cases, is this affecting judges as well? NOEL KING, BYLINE: Oh, my God. Yes, 900,000 cases in that backlog. Judges are incredibly stressed. I went to immigration court yesterday to put this in perspective. And a single judge was considering 80 cases. That took him half the day. I talked to Ashley Tabaddor. She's the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. And I asked her, what are your colleagues telling you? ASHLEY TABADDOR: Our judges are absolutely burned out. They call and reach out to us on a regular basis, and they are just burned out. Our judges are doing the best they can, but we are really facing unprecedented times. NOEL KING, BYLINE: And just lastly, Audie, Border Patrol agents down here say the same thing - burnout, burnout, burnout. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's Noel King reporting from El Paso, Texas. Thanks so much. NOEL KING, BYLINE: Thank you.

NPR's Audie Cornish talks with Morning Edition host Noel King, who has been reporting from the Texas-Mexico border about the impacts of the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy.

Audie Cornish von NPR spricht mit dem Moderator der Morning Edition, Noel King, der von der texanisch-mexikanischen Grenze aus über die Auswirkungen der Politik der Trump-Administration „In Mexiko bleiben“ berichtet hat.

NPR的奥迪· 康沃尔与晨间版主持人诺埃尔·金交谈 ，金一直在德克萨斯-墨西哥边境报道特朗普政府“留在墨西哥”政策的影响。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Doctors should be on the lookout for a mysterious childhood illness that can cause muscle weakness and paralysis. That warning comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC, last year, documented the largest outbreak since it started tracking the illness in 2014. It found 233 cases in 41 states. NPR's Allison Aubrey has more. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Kids who get this mystery disease called acute flaccid myelitis or AFM typically start off with what seems like a run-of-the-mill illness - a virus with a cough, fever. But then several days in, they may suddenly get neck pain and weakness. Nikita Shukla is a pediatric neurologist at Texas Children's Hospital. She saw her first cases of AFM last year. NIKITA SHUKLA: So what I saw was weakness. They're not able to lift their arms or leg. And, usually, what I see is some respiratory difficulty at that time. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: AFM is typically seen in very young children. The average age is 5 years old. Shukla says medicines such as steroids can help. And she says getting kids into physical therapy as soon as possible is also helpful. But unfortunately, more than 70% of kids who get AFM still have limb weakness months after they get sick. And Shukla says the disease is still very much of a mystery. NIKITA SHUKLA: I think the big question that needs to be answered is, what's causing this? ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: So far, it's not clear why some kids go from a mild virus to a condition that causes near paralysis within the span of a week. The CDC has stepped up its surveillance and research to try to figure it out. Here's the CDC's Anne Schuchat. ANNE SCHUCHAT: Acute flaccid myelitis or AFM is a devastating illness for patients and their families. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Schuchat says the CDC does not know what's causing this disease, but important pieces of evidence point to viruses, which may trigger AFM. Among the kids who got AFM in 2018, about half were positive for either enterovirus or rhinovirus, which is a common cold virus. But she says there's still a lot to learn. ANNE SCHUCHAT: We're working with local and state public health departments and collaborating with universities and the National Institutes of Health to conduct research. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Schuchat says one thing that can slow this down is when suspected cases are not reported promptly to local health departments, as was the case in 2018. So she says doctors should try to recognize symptoms early and take action. ANNE SCHUCHAT: When specimens are collected as soon as possible, we have a better chance of understanding the causes of AFM and developing a diagnostic test. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Schuchat says peak season for the onset of the illness is just around the corner. ANNE SCHUCHAT: Most patients develop AFM between August and October. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: And she wants health care providers to be on the lookout. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Allison Aubrey, NPR News.

The CDC is calling on medical professionals to recognize acute flaccid myelitis and report all suspected cases. According to the CDC, AFM cases follow a seasonal and biennial pattern.

Die CDC fordert Mediziner auf, eine akute schlaffe Myelitis zu erkennen und alle Verdachtsfälle zu melden. Laut CDC folgen AFM-Fälle einem saisonalen und zweijährigen Muster.

美国疾控中心呼吁医疗专业人士辨别急性弛缓性脊髓炎，并报告所有疑似病例。据美国疾控中心称，急性弛缓性脊髓炎病例符合季节性和两年一次的模式。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: We're in the second season of a drama built on grit, glamour and gold lame. BILLY PORTER: (As Pray Tell) The category is live, work, pose. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The FX show "Pose" chronicles the lives of gay and transgender characters in New York's ballroom culture in 1990. NPR's Eric Deggans says last night's episode entered new territory for the show. He spoke with the people who wrote it. And be warned - there are spoilers ahead. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: When "Pose" first debuted on FX last year, co-creator Ryan Murphy noticed a serious problem. Thanks to long-standing tropes about gay and transgender characters getting killed, fans kept expecting someone to die. RYAN MURPHY: Every time an episode would air, we would be reading the social media feed and people would write. Oh, I know Angel's going to die this week. I don't know if I can take it. So we finally said to our audience, don't worry. That's not going to happen this year. Just relax into the storytelling. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: The storytelling on "Pose" has featured epic underground ball competitions filled with dazzling costumes and dancing, led by an emcee named Pray Tell, played by Billy Porter. BILLY PORTER: (As Pray Tell) Yes, divas. I want to see all my banjee boys to hit the floor and vogue. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Madonna's "Vogue" Echoes through the show's second season, raising hopes that New York's ball scene just might reach America's mainstream. BILLY PORTER: (As Pray Tell) We done changed the culture, y'all. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: But Murphy and co-executive producer Janet Mock also had a devastating surprise. Along with exploring the AIDS epidemic, this season would also finally feature the death of a major character, as Mock points out. JANET MOCK: We knew that one of the other epidemics that wasn't really being talked about that was heightened then just as much as it's heightened today is the violence against trans women. And so we knew we would have to say goodbye to one of our characters one of our leading women. Who? You know, that was always the hard question for us. JANET MOCK: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #1: (As character) They found Candy's body dead in the closet. Oh, God. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Viewers saw Tuesday that Candy Ferocity, played by transgender actress Angelica Ross, was killed while working as a prostitute. Her death inspires other transgender women, her chosen family, to work together in staging her memorial. Murphy, who co-wrote the script with Mock and directed the episode, says the loss underscores an important issue. RYAN MURPHY: I think for many people in this community particularly, they feel unloved, unseen, unappreciated. You have that moment where you're just so frustrated. Why aren't people getting me? Why can't they see all that I can do? And many times that doesn't happen, until you're gone, you know? ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: But the episode also raises a question. Isn't killing off a transgender woman utilizing the very tropes the show's tried to avoid? Murphy says no. Candy wasn't a plot device. Her character was fleshed out, often through her conflicts with Pray Tell. In one scene, Candy asked him to create a new performance category for the competitions. ANGELICA ROSS: (As Candy) I'm a performer, a star. So why don't we just come up with some categories, so we can show that off? BILLY PORTER: (As Pray Tell) Would you like us to put a pole in the middle of the room, so you can show us all your hidden talents? ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Later during Candy's funeral, Pray Tell imagines explaining to her why he was so judgmental. BILLY PORTER: (As Pray Tell) Maybe I didn't want to look at you. You are unapologetic, loud, black, femme - all the things that I try to hide about myself when I go out into the real world. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Then Candy's mother imagines telling her she accepts her, finally. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #2: (As character) Wasn't no guidebook instructing me on how to raise a child like you. You know, the outside is different. But beneath it, all I see is my baby. RYAN MURPHY: When you're watching the episode, what you're seeing is the first take that those actors did. I guess we had maybe a hundred people all, you know, from the LGBTQ community. And everybody in the room was crying because I think everybody in that room wishes their parents would say those things to them. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: "Pose" features the largest cast of transgender actors in regular series roles in scripted TV. Five major transgender characters and over 140 LGBTQ people total in the cast and crew. Murphy says giving them a creative voice is important because he remembers how hard it was as a gay man to speak up on the first TV show he co-created in 1999, the WB high-school drama "Popular." RYAN MURPHY: My first show, you know, that I created, I had to fight to be able to direct it. And they told me, well, we don't really know if you understand the tone. And I kept saying, but I (laughter) wrote the show. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: These days, Murphy's the king of television, with a string of hits like "9-1-1" and the "American Horror Story" franchise. But one show in particular taught him the power of TV to teach acceptance for gay and transgender characters... GLEE CAST: (As characters, vocalizing). ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: ...The high-school musical drama "Glee." RYAN MURPHY: Television is important because when you watch it, you fall in love with those characters. And those characters are your friends. You know, when "Glee" came on the air in 2009, which is right around when people started talking about gay marriage in this country, I feel like that show and "Modern Family" and others like it - Will & Grace" - really pushed awareness because people knew someone in the LGBT community. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Mock was already a successful author, TV host and transgender rights activist before Murphy brought her to work on "Pose." And she's since become the first transgender woman of color to sign a production pact with a major studio - at Netflix, where Murphy also has a $300 million deal. Ask how they work together, and Murphy jokes that Mock just tells him what to do. But he's also given her something new, a mentor. JANET MOCK: You know, I've never had any mentors myself. I've always just created a way out of no way. I just kind of saw what other people did. And I was like, oh, that's kind of interesting. Let me try that myself. But to meet someone who's like, I see something in you. And I'm going to help you get there. And I'm going to give you the opportunities and let you fail - he's very fraternal and loving in that way. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: It's Murphy's strategy of showrunning as advocacy, empowering once-marginalized people to tell their own stories on TV, redefining history in the process. It's also why Murphy says "Pose's" story will end in 1996, when more effective drugs to combat AIDS emerged, winding down a terrible era. RYAN MURPHY: Because so many mentors of ours died early and prematurely. You know, there's a need for history. There's a need for legacy and storytelling that remembers that period. ERIC DEGGANS, BYLINE: Mock and Murphy vow to keep telling such stories, even when they require sacrificing a valued character to tell a painful truth. I'm Eric Deggans.

The award-winning FX series, Pose, chronicles the lives of LGBTQ characters in New York's underground ballroom culture. The show's co-creators discuss an episode where a transgender woman is murdered.

Die preisgekrönte FX-Serie "Pose" beschreibt das Leben von LGBTQ-Charakteren in der New Yorker Underground-Ballsaal-Kultur. Die Mitschöpfer der Serie sprechen über eine Episode, in der eine Transgender-Frau ermordet wird.

获奖的 FX 电视剧《姿态》记录了纽约地下舞厅文化中 LGBTQ 角色的生活。这部剧的共同创作者讨论了跨性别女性被谋杀的一集。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The U.S. Women's National Soccer Team is contending for a fourth Women's World Cup tomorrow. At the same time, its team members have been fighting for pay comparable to that of their male colleagues. Meanwhile, the debate over how college athletes are treated recently reached a new level as well. A bill that allows athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likenesses is now making its way through the California Assembly. The so-called Fair Pay to Play Act passed the state Senate in May. And it's gotten national attention after being criticized by the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Mark Emmert. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: We wanted to know more about it, so we called Ramogi Huma. He was behind the 2014 attempt to unionize Northwestern football players. He is the founder and executive director of the College Athletes Players Association. And we started our conversation by asking how this bill is different from past efforts to compensate college players. RAMOGI HUMA: This is state legislation, and state legislation is different than some of the major pushes in the past. If you look at some of the most compelling battlefronts, you're looking at lawsuits. And some of the lawsuits were - are successful to a certain degree but have not provided what we see as equal rights and protections. I think that right now, this is probably the best leverage that college athletes have ever had in terms of breaking through that threshold. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm thinking - the analogy that you draw here is - would be, say, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, which is that if he started working on Facebook in his dorm room at Harvard, Harvard doesn't think they have a right to a piece of Facebook. But I think the analogy that the universities might use is a student using the lab facilities to work on some breakthrough cure for cancer, let's say, the university would think, because you're using my facilities to advance your talent, they then deserve a piece of your breakthrough. Do you understand what I'm saying? RAMOGI HUMA: Yeah. There's a couple aspects to that argument. Number one is the players already had a reputation. Otherwise, they would not be competing in college sports. Does the college seek to enhance that image? Yes. And athlete's reputation - yes. But when a player goes and signs an autograph, does the school somehow have the right to literally just own that player's name, image and likeness? Is that player property of the university? Our answer is no. RAMOGI HUMA: Another anecdote was - it was really interesting. David Drummond, who's a vice president of Google - he used to play football at Santa Clara University. And in a keynote address at a symposium, he talked about the fact that Google was developed at Stanford, in part by student researchers. Stanford paid those student researchers very well. So it's not some kind of a rule or moral high ground that says the university has to monopolize every bit of talent whether or not the student is advancing gains using the university's computers or not. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: The NCAA president, Mark Emmert, sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to delay the bill, suggesting that the players would be harmed by this. I mean, that was kind of the language that he used. But he said that players, for example, could be ruled ineligible for competition. What's the basis of that? And is that a credible threat? RAMOGI HUMA: You can never protect someone by stripping them of their rights. The premise is that unless California lawmakers become complicit in denying California athletes equal rights, then somehow those players will be harmed. And that's just a false premise. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And before we let you go, do you feel like you're making headway? Like, you know, part of the reason you got started with this - you were a former UCLA football player yourself. You saw the NCAA suspend your teammate for accepting a bag of groceries when he had no food. You know, you've seen a lot over the course of time that you've been working on this. And I'm just wondering if you feel like your arguments are making headway. Are people starting to take the questions around how college athletes are treated more seriously? RAMOGI HUMA: I do think there's progress. Not as fast as I would like - you know, you look at the multi-year scholarships are now available, the name, image and likeness lawsuit from Ed O'Bannon that resulted in stipends. There's still a ways to go. Let's put it that way. But I do think there's reform. I think a lot of key people are listening, especially lawmakers. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That is Ramogi Huma. He is the founder and executive director of the National College Players Association, an organization founded to advocate for college athletes. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Ramogi, thanks so much for talking to us once again. RAMOGI HUMA: Thanks for having me.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with College Athletics Players Association founder Ramogi Huma about a California bill that will allow compensation for college athletes.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem Gründer der College Athletics Players Association, Ramogi Huma, über ein kalifornisches Gesetz, das eine Entschädigung für College-Athleten vorsieht.

NPR新闻的米歇尔·马丁采访了大学运动员协会的创始人拉莫吉·胡马，谈到了加利福尼亚州一项法案，该法案将允许对大学生运动员进行补偿。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: Aides reported that Senator Daniel Inouye's last words as he lay dying was aloha. History rarely hinges on the contributions of any one person. But no one person did more for the state of Hawaii than Daniel Inouye - a witness to the attack on Pearl Harbor as a teenager; a volunteer, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism for his service in the famous Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team; the first Japanese-American elected to Congress, and by the time of his death last night, second only to Robert Byrd as the longest-serving senator in U.S. history. He played key roles in congressional investigations of two of the biggest political scandals of the 20th century and earmarked many billions for federally funded projects all over the islands. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We especially want to hear from those of you in Hawaii - from Hawaii - on the legacy of Senator Daniel Inouye. The phone number, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. And you can join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. And joining us now is Bill Dorman, the news director at Hawaii Public Radio. Nice to have you with us today. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Aloha, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And thanks. And tell us what Senator Inouye is being remembered for in Hawaii today. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: You know, there is so much and it's so different for different people. The history of Hawaii as a state and even before that is the history of Dan Inouye here on so many levels. If you look anywhere on any of the Hawaiian islands, you see something that Dan Inouye helped to build, helped to fund, helped to support. Forty-nine years in the Senate, that's a legacy not just about projects that he leaves behind but also the person who he was, and that's what a lot of people are continuing to talk about today and across Hawaii. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There are senators who cut important figures on the national scene. Senator Inouye, for all that time in the Senate, worked behind the scenes generally in Washington. Was he well-known in Hawaii? BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Oh, absolutely, probably the best known certainly a sense of power but also force of moral nature, almost. The history, again, going back before statehood but representing Hawaii in Washington, D.C., since 1959, from when Eisenhower was in the White House - you know, and you talk about him coming to the Senate in 1963, the first Japanese-American. This was a year before the Civil Rights Act. So again, the context, the history for people here in Hawaii, Senator Dan, as people would call him, just had that legacy, that history, and really leaves a legacy, as I say, not just of projects but also of spirit. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That spirit - he had the moral authority of somebody who is there so early, as we mentioned - a witness at Pearl Harbor, a member of that Nisei regiment that he served with in Italy - and it's interesting, I read this morning about, he was recovering in the hospital from his wounds, which were ghastly - he lost his right arm - and he was playing cards with a young lieutenant from Kansas that had also been severely injured, a kid named Bob Dole. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Yes. Exactly. And later on on the Senate floor, across the aisle - but, you know, that also is very representative of what a lot of Senator Inouye's legacy is as well, and that's moving beyond partisanship. He was very much someone who worked behind the scenes, across the aisle, very much someone who believed that the cause is the important thing, partisanship comes secondary to the importance. He was also for - as powerful senator as he was, he was a very humble guy, very much - very keen sense of humor, particularly about himself. But when he would need to summon the voice and that stern countenance - Governor Abercrombie yesterday said that, you know, I don't suppose there's any such thing as the voice of God, but I have an idea that if God had to pick somebody to speak for him, it would have been Dan Inouye. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Can you give us any examples of that humor that you could remember? BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Well, you know, he was just been here at Hawaii Public Radio last year talking with a group of us and going through various stories about his childhood and about growing up. And we asked him about Pearl Harbor, about when that happened and what he was doing. He talked about being a senior at McKinley High School here in Honolulu and then hearing the bombs, seeing what was going on and getting on his bicycle and riding his bicycle down to Pearl Harbor. In the midst of this very dramatic story, sort of, said in aside of, you know, and I didn't pedal very fast. I wasn't very athletic but I kept going... BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: ...and made it down. And he came in as a medical volunteer and just worked the rest of that day. That's another thing about the senator. You know, he had dreams of being a surgeon before the war. And when his right arm was shattered, his dreams were shattered along with that. But then he just changed course. And that theme of resilience, of overcoming obstacles is something that very much resonated with the people of Hawaii over time and is something that he very much stood for. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You mentioned the projects. It was common practice in the U.S. Congress for members to be able to earmark various projects. And, well, as a powerful United States senator, Dan Inouye earmarked more than a few projects. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: He sure did. And he made no bones about it and said this is - I am in the Senate for the good of the American people and for the good of the people of the state of Hawaii. And I am here to make sure that some of the federal dollars come this way. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: He did - he brought a lot of Defense Department spending to the islands. "The Almanac of American Politics," for example, says he brought $1.4 billion in military projects to Hawaii from '98 to 2003, just over those five years, but other projects as well and things that are specific to Hawaii that are maybe difficult for those outside the state to understand but that are important when it comes to, for example, for invasive species. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: There is a famous brown tree snake that is very critical in terms of killing wildlife and birds in particular. It sounds - well, we need millions to combat this tree snake. It sounds as if, oh, that's a boondoggle. But in terms of importance to people of Hawaii, that's something that's very important. And he said that the earmark process gave an area - gave a means for those Hawaii-specific projects to be represented at the federal level. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Are you with us from Honolulu? BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: I am indeed. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Can you tell us some projects within just the vicinity of the Hawaii Public Radio studios there of something that Senator Inouye gave to the people of Hawaii? BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Sure. I mean, my first thought is infrastructure. You know, Hawaii is not just a tourist destination but also a major port. And the port facilities, the infrastructure generally in terms of highways, in terms of freeways, in terms of not just what is here now but what is planned for the future, that all has his fingerprints all over it. There is a commuter rail project, bit of a controversy, but that is underway and in the works for Honolulu. $1.5 billion in federal funding is part of that project. And just very recently, he announced the approval from the Transportation Department for that money, so just one of many examples of the things that he brought to the state. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That waterfront is impressive, not just the ships bringing in all the food and other freight that the people there on the islands need but the looming cruise ships that dwarf everything on the ports. We want to talk with people in and from Hawaii about the legacy of Daniel Inouye. Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Let's start with Ian. And Ian is calling us from Honolulu. IAN: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, please. IAN: Sure. I just wanted to, you know, two things. One, and your guest already mentioned it, is that I don't know if history will always necessarily report how much Senator Dan got stuff done behind the scenes. You mentioned it, but I hope some - at some point people are able to sort of delve into that because he worked with people in a way that is pretty much lost now. And even with - even when I didn't agree with what he was doing with like, for instance, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on a lot of things, Senator Dan always had a way of not grandstanding, making his positions clear but not taking advantage and making compromise impossible. So I'll miss that. IAN: But the other factor is just that he - in addition to all the infrastructure and all the military spending, you know, his legacy is going to be felt around the world because he brought a lot of things related to like, you know, tsunami warning and the ports were mentioned and just a whole lot of stuff that - work that contributing to working with other nations in the Pacific through Hawaii that's benefited United States and Asia. So he's going to have a long legacy throughout the Pacific Rim. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ian, thanks very much for the call. We appreciate it. IAN: Sure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to - this is Ricky(ph), another caller from Honolulu. RICKY: Hi there. How are you? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Good. Thank you. RICKY: I'm looking at a beautiful Hawaiian rainbow as I call you. I just wanted to say a couple of very brief things about the senator. I came to Hawaii from Massachusetts and - where Ted Kennedy was revered, and Senator Inouye is revered here. And beyond his tireless long list of notable achievements, the one thing that people here in Hawaii, as part of their culture, really respect about him is how he got business done using the aloha spirit. And the aloha spirit is probably the pinnacle, a very Hawaiian culture. RICKY: And the aloha spirit, for those of your listeners that don't know what it is, it would be consciously and deliberately always treating the other person with positive civil regard and making a deliberate decision to do that all the time and treating them honorably even if they didn't agree with your views. And in Washington with the gridlock these days, not only is this way by him considered, I think, a role model but the schoolchildren of Hawaii, what we call our keiki, are taught about him and how he exhibited the aloha spirit. So I think that's really one of his greatest contributions to society. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, Ricky. RICKY: Absolutely. And you have a great day. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thank you. We're talking about Senator Daniel Inouye, the second longest-serving senator in the history of the U.S. Senate. He died yesterday in Bethesda, Maryland, not far from Capitol Hill. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And our guest is Bill Dorman, news director at Hawaii Public Radio. And let's see we get another caller in on the conversation. This is Marty(ph), and Marty is with us from Kailua-Kona in Hawaii. MARTY: Yes. I think it's kind of important that we not just look at the positives of Mr. Inouye's career. He chaired the commission that looked into the Iran-Contra investigation, and a lot of information about the CIA dealing crack cocaine was covered up by Mr. Inouye. Public debate was pushed behind private dollars, you know, so that we didn't get to know very important things. Mr. Inouye was a very big friend of the military industrial complex, and being that in this country means a big friend of imperialism. And I think it's important not to put too shiny a gloss on someone posthumously and ignore the things that they did that were really a detriment to the entire world. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Marty, thanks very much. He mentions a popularly held theory among some about cocaine smuggling as part of the Iran-Contra affair. That's never been proven, so it's something that people believe. And if there was proof that came to light in the course of those investigations, well, it was never made public. Senator Inouye, as we mentioned, was part of two senatorial or congressional investigations. People remember him first on the Senate Watergate Committee chaired by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina down the panel, if memory serves, to Senator Ervin's left. Then, of course, as the caller mentioned, the chair of the committee that investigated the Iran-Contra affair back in 1987. He offered a report on the committee's findings. SENATOR DANIEL INOUYE: Inescapably, some facts have been lost to us and have been lost to history. But you do not have to see every grain of sand to recognize a beach. The picture presented, I think, is rather clear. The committees conclude that the officials who participated in the scandal showed disdain for our laws and our constitutional system of government. They ran a government outside government. They conducted a secret foreign policy and concealed it through a concerted campaign of dishonesty and deception. And when the affair began to unravel, they attempted to cover up their deeds. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I wanted to ask, Bob Dorman, as chair of that committee, at the time, Senator Inouye hoped to become the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, majority leader. He did not get that post. He ran for it and was defeated by George Mitchell. Was there resentment in Hawaii that he did not get the top post? BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: I'd say in Hawaii, two levels on that. One, the - in terms of the Iran-Contra committee itself, there was criticism at the time as you recall that in the testimony of President Reagan was delayed. It was on tape. It was later - it was - there were areas that perhaps could have been explored more aggressively. Again, here, I think the focus was always more local with the senator that it was about Hawaii first and his role in national politics as a secondary part or as a portion of that as how it helped the people of Hawaii. So I think that would be less of an obsession here than perhaps elsewhere in the national politics. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Inside the beltway. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Exactly. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see we get one more caller, and this is Bob, another caller from Honolulu. BOB: Aloha. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Aloha. We just have a few seconds, Bob. Can you make it quick? BOB: Yeah. I was there when Senator Inouye told us a very funny story. It's the first White House dinner he attended in 1959. He had just been sworn in as a junior congressman from Hawaii. He said he was pulling up to the White House gates and he could hear the guards whispering because they hadn't seen too many Asian people. Who the hell is that, one guard said. The other one said I think it's the king of Siam. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bob, thanks very much. Appreciate it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's Bob calling us from Honolulu. Hawaii's other senator, Daniel Akaka, said: Senator Inouye's legacy could be seen in every mile of every road in Hawaii, in every nature preserved, in every facility that makes Hawaii a safer place. He fulfilled his dream of creating a better Hawaii. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Bob Dorman, it's going to be interesting times there too as we see the passing of that generation, not just Senator Inouye who died yesterday but Senator Akaka as well is going to be moving on from the political scene and transitions all over the place. Thanks very much for being our guest today. BILL DORMAN, BYLINE: Thank you and aloha. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Bill Dorman, news director at Hawaii Public Radio. Tomorrow, adoption and the Internet. Going online to fill out your family is becoming more prevalent, but there are risks. Join us for that conversation tomorrow on TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, NPR News in Washington.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) was known for his military service during World War II and his work to improve Hawaii's infrastructure. When he died on Dec. 17, 2012, he was the second-longest serving senator in U.S. history. Bill Dorman, news director at Hawaii Public Radio, reflects on what made him so influential in Hawaii.

Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) war bekannt für seinen Militärdienst während des Zweiten Weltkriegs und seine Arbeit zur Verbesserung der Infrastruktur Hawaiis. Als er am 17. Dezember 2012 starb, war er der am zweitlängsten amtierende Senator in der US-Geschichte. Bill Dorman, Nachrichtendirektor beim Hawaii Public Radio, reflektiert darüber, was ihn auf Hawaii so einflussreich gemacht hat.

参议员井上健（夏威夷州民主党）以其在二战期间服兵役和改善夏威夷基础设施的工作而闻名。他于2012年12月17日去世，是美国历史上在位时间第二长的参议员。夏威夷公共广播电台的新闻总监比尔·多曼回顾了是什么让他在夏威夷有如此大的影响力。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Bud Selig has written a new autobiography, and some of it may surprise you. The former Major League Baseball commissioner is candid, sometimes foul-mouthed and angry, a contrast to his public persona when he led the sport for 22 years. During his tenure, he navigated tumultuous events that included a player strike and the spread of performance-enhancing drugs. Selig retired in 2015, but he is still connected to the game he fell in love with as a boy. NPR's Tom Goldman recently met up with the commissioner emeritus in Selig's hometown of Milwaukee. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Bud Selig didn't like Barry Bonds. In 2007, Selig was miserable having to follow the steroids-tainted slugger for the San Francisco Giants as Bonds crisscrossed the country, closing in on the moment... DUANE KUIPER: It is out of here. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: ...When he broke Hank Aaron's career home run record. In 1995, during the contentious baseball player strike, Selig launched a tirade replete with F-bombs against former Vice President Al Gore. These pointed moments recounted in his book, "For The Good Of The Game," are startling when you remember Selig's public image. He was derided by critics as sometimes bumbling and absent-minded. Those who know him know differently. For them, the sharp-edged Bud Selig is real. BUD SELIG: Well, there's nothing like Cooperstown, but this is pretty close. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: But so, too, is the man who gets lost in baseball reverence, like last week, when he led me around his Milwaukee office with its Hall of Fame-worthy artifacts. We stopped next to a letter written in 1942, a month after Pearl Harbor. It's an original from President Franklin D. Roosevelt to then-baseball commissioner Kenesaw Landis, asking Landis to keep the game going during World War II. BUD SELIG: Do you know I often refer to baseball as a social institution? And this letter is another manifestation of that. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Mountain on another wall - an X-ray of Boston Red Sox legend Ted Williams. BUD SELIG: He broke his elbow in 1950 and played the whole game. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Selig likes to tell the story of grit because Williams hurt himself in an all-star game, a contest modern players often brushed off as a meaningless exhibition. In his book, Selig says Williams liked to tell the commissioner he had the worst job in America. How could he put up with all those bleeps? - Williams was talking about baseball owners. BUD SELIG: I said, there are some weeks you're right, but I'm doing what I love. And the owners were great. I can never criticize them. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Many could. And it seemed like a ripe moment to ask him about the contentious years between owners and players the book describes, including the charges that Selig and other owners colluded to hold down player salaries. But not there - we had a date to watch his beloved Brewers, who he brought to Milwaukee in 1970. We piled into Selig's black sedan, 84-year-old Bud at the wheel. Ten minutes later, we were at the stadium he helped secure. It opened in 2001. BUD SELIG: Now, here we have Miller Park. A lot of controversy - public funds, private funds. Look at it today. They're going to draw 3 million people here this year in a market of a million-five (ph). TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And this is a theme in Selig's book - ends justified means. As in many cities in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was a lot of rancor over building Miller Park with public funds. Now it's a Milwaukee fixture. There was pain and anger surrounding the 1994-95 strike and cancellation of the World Series. But since then, there have been 24 years of labor peace. There was perhaps no more enduring controversy than the issue of steroid use. It mushroomed on Selig's watch, prompting critics to label him the steroids commissioner. Sitting now outside his stadium suite, munching on a salad, Selig wants to set the record straight on what he calls historical myths about the drug issue. BUD SELIG: We were slow to react - no, we weren't. This is a subject of collective bargaining. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And Selig says the union wouldn't bargain. He still blames the Players Association for resisting at every turn the drug testing he wanted and got the owners to support. Although, a comprehensive steroids study he commissioned, the Mitchell report, spread the blame. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Didn't it say everyone was a little bit at fault, even management? BUD SELIG: Well... TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Everyone was at fault? BUD SELIG: ...He did. You're right. But look - I don't know. I've often thought on what else could I have done. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Selig has always said he consulted with those inside the game and was often told steroids weren't a widespread problem. That didn't convince skeptical baseball writers or lawmakers. This was Florida Representative Cliff Stearns at a 2008 congressional hearing on drug use in sports. CLIFF STEARNS: In short, they failed. And I'm already on record calling for the resignation of Commissioner Selig. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Ultimately, Selig got it and pushed hard for drug testing. Travis Tygart heads the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. TRAVIS TYGART: To the extent you can get owners to agree to anything, Selig did a hell of a job getting his owners to eventually, you know, recognize the issues and put it on a strong program. And that in turn, I think, turned the tide of the players. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Baseball's drug program today, Tygart says, with its robust testing and sanctions, is the gold standard among major U.S. professional sports - ends justifying means. But critics still linger. Selig was inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame in 2017; some said, as a result, Barry Bonds and other players linked to the so-called steroids era who've been left out of the Hall should get in, too. Will his book, with its detailed description of the steroid battles, mollify the critics? BUD SELIG: I mean, that's a fair question. I don't think so. But maybe it will. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Whatever the final verdict, Selig knows at least his legacy is secure in the place he's always cared about most. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Mr. Selig, how are you? BUD SELIG: I'm good. How are you? TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Walking the concourse at Miller Park, Selig gets that a lot - greetings and gratitude. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Thank you for transforming the game, Mr. Selig. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: What were once raging controversies during Selig's tenure now are accepted parts of baseball - wild-card teams in the playoffs, interleague play, revenue sharing, drug testing. It's someone else's job to meet the game's current challenges - attracting younger, more diverse fans, maintaining labor peace, improving action on the field. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: After this fourth-inning home run put Milwaukee ahead for good, Selig left the park. The retired commissioner emeritus said he had to get back to work, maybe a call to current Commissioner Rob Manfred with whom Selig talks regularly. Back at the office with a Brewers victory secured and surrounded by his history, chances are good Bud Selig was satisfied. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Tom Goldman, NPR News, Milwaukee.

As commissioner, Bud Selig led Major League Baseball through a major restructuring. He was also at the helm during the 1994 strike and the steroid era. He's candid about it all in a new book.

Als Kommissar führte Bud Selig die Major League Baseball durch eine umfassende Umstrukturierung. Er war auch während des Streiks 1994 und der Steroid-Ära am Ruder. In seinem neuen Buch spricht er offen über alles.

作为委员，巴德塞利格领导美国职业棒球大联盟进行了重大改组。在1994年的罢工和类固醇年代，他还承担了掌舵人一职。他在一本新书里写明了一切。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You can find toxic content on all corners of social media, but what if it's coming from U.S. federal agents? STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, the investigative newsroom ProPublica revealed offensive posts about migrants, and those posts were on a secret Facebook group that was said to be designed for current and former Border Patrol agents. Now, it's not clear that everybody on this site was an agent, but ProPublica identified some who appear to be. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And the people targeted by the posts include Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She happened to be part of a group of lawmakers who toured border detention facilities yesterday. Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas was also part of that group. JOAQUIN CASTRO: When we went into the cell, it was clear that the water was not running. There was a toilet, but there was no running water for people to drink. In fact, one of the women said that she was told by an agent to drink water out of the toilet. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's Franco Ordoñez is covering the story and joins us in studio. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thanks for being here, Franco. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: FRANCO ORDOÑEZ, BYLINE: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I'm going to get to that Facebook page, but I want to start with this visit by the Democratic lawmakers to the border. What more did they say about what they saw? RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ORDOÑEZ: Well, it was about a dozen members who visited these facilities. And you have to remember, these - some of these facilities in Texas have come under incredible scrutiny after reports of overcrowding and squalid conditions. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is a group that visited these facilities. And as you just played in that clip, they met with about a dozen women in one facility and did not find running water. As Joaquin Castro said and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have said, they're very concerned that they do not have water to drink and that they're being forced to do so out of unsanitary conditions. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And we should say these are some of the lawmakers who were actually opposed to the congressional bill that was passed passing all this humanitarian aid to the border. They didn't think it was enough. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ORDOÑEZ: Absolutely. This is a group that was very critical of the bipartisan bill that the House and the Senate passed. But this group wanted a lot more tougher protections for migrants, and migrant children specifically. So this visit comes on the heels of that controversy. Therefore, there was already a lot of lack of trust walking in. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So let's get to this Facebook page. This is coming from a report from ProPublica. They are reporting the existence of this private Facebook page that had all these offensive posts. We're not going to say - explicitly describing them, but can you give us a general sense of what these posts say? RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ORDOÑEZ: Yeah. I mean, the group is called I’m 10-15. It refers to a code for migrants in custody. It boasts thousands of members. Current and former - that's still a little bit unclear. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: But as you point, what was revealed in these posts is what was really eye-catching - jokes about throwing burritos at these visiting lawmakers, deaths of migrants. One particular issue was a personal illustration of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appearing to perform a sex act on the president. She responded last night, saying that it showed a violent culture in the Border Patrol. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Misogynistic statements, racist statements - what is the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, saying about this? RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ORDOÑEZ: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is saying that this is completely inappropriate, that it's contrary to the integrity of everyday agents, that all employees found will be held accountable. And they are talking about an independent investigation by the inspector general. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: All right. NPR's Franco Ordoñez, thank you so much. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: ORDOÑEZ: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what remains of the Iran nuclear deal - you know, the one the U.S. dropped out of and that Iran is now exceeding? STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Iran confirmed on Monday that it has gone beyond the limit for enriched uranium that is called for by the agreement with world powers. Iran says it has a right to break that rule because the world powers are not keeping the bargain to boost Iran's economy. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Speaking on Fox, President Trump said Iranians are playing with fire. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They're having a lot of difficulty in their country right now. And hopefully, at some point, they'll come back and they'll say, we're going to make a deal. We'll see what happens. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Other nations have been trying to save the deal that already exists. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR correspondent Deb Amos joins us now from Berlin. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Hi, Deb. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Good morning. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So Iran has now breached a fundamental tenet of the nuclear agreement. How is Europe responding? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: The statements out of European capitals have all been essentially the same, which is, we're concerned. And they all urge Iran to stick to the nuclear deal but short of next steps. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Now, this breach seems to be intended to pressure the Europeans to deliver on the economic benefits that Iran was promised in the nuclear deal and has been wiped out by these new U.S. sanctions, but it's going to be very hard for the Europeans to deliver. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: I mean, how does it even work? Can European nations do business with Iran outside of U.S. sanctions? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Well, here's an example. Germany did the biggest trade with Iran - 60 businesses. It has essentially collapsed. So the Europeans have put together this barter system. It's the Germans, the French and the U.K. And they say that it's up and running. It's only going to deliver food and medicine. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: But here's a problem with the barter system. You have to have money on both sides. Iran wants Europe to establish a credit line because they can't sell their oil, and Iran just doesn't sell enough pistachios and carpets to make this whole thing work. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And then there's one other thing, and that is European companies don't want to take the risk to trade with Iran, even on goods that aren't under sanctions, because they are so worried they'll get shut out of the U.S. market. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what now? I realize this is a huge question. But what events does this now trigger - Iran's violation of the deal? DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: So this can be reversed. What everybody is watching for is the next steps. And there's a deadline of July 7, when Iran says that they will have more serious breaches of the nuclear accord. That we have to watch for. It raises the stakes for Europe. There's more meetings in Europe to see if they can find some way. European powers have resisted reimposing their own sanctions. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: But ultimately, if Iran goes further, they risk alienating the U.K., France and Germany. Those are the signatories to the deal. Russia and China - those are the other signatories. They will likely side with Tehran if this whole deal collapses. So you're looking at a new fault line if there's any potential conflict. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You can see the dilemma the Iranians actually face here. The U.S. is banking on the idea that the U.S. is so big, so powerful that it can implode this whole deal, it can wreck this whole deal. The Iranians and the Europeans have been trying otherwise. But essentially, Iran's threat is, if this keeps going, we will destroy the deal, which is what the U.S. actually wants. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: And that puts Iran in a tough - that puts the Europeans in a very tough position. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. NPR's Deb Amos for us on this. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Thanks, Deb. We appreciate it. DEBORAH AMOS, BYLINE: Thank you. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Local prosecutors in Washington, D.C., are experimenting with a new response to crime. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: When that crime involves young offenders, prosecutors can try to connect the suspects with the people they hurt in a process that avoids traditional criminal prosecution. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's an idea called restorative justice. And our national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson was able to get a close look at how it's playing out right here in the district. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Hi, Carrie. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Hey, Rachel. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So tell us about this program. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: You know, it does bring together young people - these are juveniles under age 18 accused of breaking the law in some fashion - with the victims they've allegedly hurt. And the program is designed to be focused on the victim. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: There are a few ground rules. It must be voluntary. Victims have to agree to participate. The program is only open to juveniles who don't use guns during their crimes. Serious sexual assaults are also not acceptable to participate in this program. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: And then, if the young people actually follow through on the plans that they develop with their victims, their charges get dismissed. It's something that's been around in some form for a long time, but D.C. is trying to turbocharge it. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Is - I mean, do the prosecutors buy into this whole thing? I mean, prosecutors usually like to prosecute people. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: (Laughter) They do, indeed. And there was a lot of skepticism coming in when this program launched. But I've spoken with prosecutors in the office who say they've sat through these sessions, and they believe it actually has the potential to change young people's hearts and minds, making them less likely to commit new crimes. Data is early and sparse, but so far, authorities in D.C. - the D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine says he thinks it looks successful. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So you got a chance to talk to someone, a young man - a victim who actually went through this process. What did he tell you? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Yeah. Believe it or not, it's a police officer who was himself the victim of an assault. He's with the Metro Transit Police. His name is Jason Dixon. About a year and a half ago or longer, Dixon was trying to break up a fight on the subway system here in D.C. among a group of kids. He took the brunt of the attack as he got in the middle of this scuffle. He actually tore his rotator cuff, strained his knee, was out of work for three months. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: But when prosecutors called, Dixon says he opted for a restorative justice session rather than take this case to court. JASON DIXON: If this was my son and somebody saw an opportunity to help him, I would hope that person would take that opportunity. You know, and I saw something in this young man that I felt like was enough to me to say, hey, I know I'm injured, but I want to see how I can change his life to the point where he doesn't make a decision like this again. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: And here's how this played out. Afterwards, they did one of these restorative justice conferences. Dixon and his wife, who's also in law enforcement, attended. This young man attended with some of his community supporters. And then there were people from the D.C. attorney general's office. They agreed that this young man was going to call Dixon once a week for six months, avoiding a possible criminal record. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: And in the end, Officer Dixon, the victim of a crime, wound up offering parenting advice to the 16-year-old who hurt him... RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Wow. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: ...Himself a new father. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It's interesting because I was going to ask, why is the focus on young people here? Couldn't it work for everyone? But clearly, they see it as a chance to change someone's life at an early stage. Just quickly, Carrie, are there other jurisdictions considering programs like this? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: You know, a number of states have been opting into some of these programs. The difference here in D.C. is that they've brought it in-house. These counselors and restorative justice personnel work right down the hall from prosecutors, hoping it will cause more prosecutors to appreciate the process and buy into it. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR's justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Carrie, thank you for sharing this. We appreciate it. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: My pleasure. Thanks.

Federal agents joked about migrants death, published report says. The international deal to curb Iran's nuclear capabilities is faltering. And, examining the new idea called restorative justice.

Bundesagenten machten Witze über den Tod von Migranten, heißt es in einem veröffentlichten Bericht. Das internationale Abkommen zur Eindämmung der Nuklearkapazitäten des Iran gerät ins Stocken. Und wir untersuchen die neue Idee der "wiederherstellenden Gerechtigkeit".

联邦探员拿移民死亡开玩笑，发表报告说。遏制伊朗核能力的国际协议正在动摇。研究一种叫做恢复性司法的新理念

MADELEINE BRAND, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Madeleine Brand. ALEX COHEN, host: I'm Alex Cohen. Just ahead, with credit tight, some nations try an old idea: bartering. MADELEINE BRAND, host: First, though, President Bush held meetings earlier today with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and with other Cabinet members about - what else? - the economy. Afterward, the president spoke with reporters. MADELEINE BRAND, host: President GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a tough situation for America, but we'll recover from it. And the first step to recovery is to safeguard our financial system. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving joins me now. The president there, talking about how the government is going to bail out Citigroup. How much influence can he have now on economic policy, now that he's a lame-duck president? RON ELVING: He is still the legal leader of the United States, and these are his officials. Henry Paulson and so on, they are his guys; they are in office because of him. So, his influence continues even though, as I think we've seen over the last several weeks, he has not been terribly active or aggressive about actually wielding any influence. His other influence, of course, is to stand out of the way and let the new team take over. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And he says he will closely cooperate with President-elect Obama. Is he doing that? RON ELVING: They've said they are. But down at the operational level, and the functional level in many of the departments, there are signs that the administration is not being nearly that cooperative, that they're not opening the books, they're not really welcoming people in, and they are trying to burrow, as the expression goes. They're trying to set certain things in place that would remain in place after the administration leaves office and the Obama administration begins. So, we do, though, have at the top level pledges of cooperation. There was a phone call between the president and the president-elect Sunday night to talk about the Citigroup situation and the plan to rescue Citigroup. So, I think at the highest levels, they are operating cordially and showing a certain amount of class. But that doesn't necessarily filter down to all levels of the government. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Well, a lot of people, a lot of economists are saying that there needs to be an economic stimulus plan enacted now, that there's a lot of precious time between now and January 20th, when Barack Obama takes office. Is there anything that the president can do in the short term? RON ELVING: You would have to say that the president is doing everything that he thinks is proper to do in the short term. Now, obviously, he could have worked more closely with Congress on some of the bailout ideas, some of the fiscal stimulus ideas. He feels, though, that his particular approach to this has been to give Paulson and Bernanke a very free hand, a lot of money which he helped push through Congress, and then say, look, you guys, do with this the best you can. Improvise, adapt, use the money whatever way you need to, to save the financial system, to watch out for the AIGs and the Citigroups and people of that nature, so that they don't go under and drag the entire credit and financial system, banking system, down with them. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Mm-hm. RON ELVING: You go back to 1932 and the election of Franklin Roosevelt in another banking crisis. Herbert Hoover was trying to do everything he could, but was working with a Congress very much at odds with him. He was a Republican; the Congress then was a Democratic Congress, as now. And he tried to do what he could in a much longer period because, in those days, they didn't inaugurate the new president until March. But things remained essentially frozen until FDR came into office. And after he was inaugurated, he immediately declared a four-day bank holiday and really took control of the situation. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Are we seeing any other areas where Barack Obama is influencing President Bush in terms of policy, aside from the economic situation? RON ELVING: I think arguments will be made, in the historical perspective, that the Obama position on the Iraq war, and gradual withdrawal from the war, and agreeing to some sort of timetable with the Iraqis, became, in a sense, the Bush administration policy at the end of the Bush administration years. It seems ironic, of course, because the signal moment of Barack Obama's entire presidential candidacy was his decision to oppose the war in Iraq, and so on. RON ELVING: But one thing we're still watching for very closely is to see whether or not Robert Gates is invited to stay as secretary of Defense, for an interim period, obviously - it would not be for the full four years of a presidential term - but he might stay to smooth the transition between the Bush administration's approach to withdrawing from Iraq and the Obama approach. That has a couple of benefits. It provides consistency and continuity. It also symbolically reinforces the idea that this is withdrawal from Bush's war. It keeps the symbolism of this being Bush's war intact for some period of months. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR's senior Washington editor, Ron Elving, thank you very much. RON ELVING: Thank you, Madeleine.

President Bush held separate meetings about the economy with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and with cabinet officials Monday. We discuss what role Bush has in making policy this late in his presidency.

Präsident Bush hielt am Montag getrennte Treffen über die Wirtschaft mit Finanzminister Henry Paulson und mit Kabinettsbeamten ab. Wir diskutieren, welche Rolle Bush so spät in seiner Präsidentschaft bei der Politikgestaltung spielt.

布什总统星期一分别与财政部长亨利·保尔森和内阁官员就经济问题举行了会谈。我们将讨论布什总统在任期后期的政策制定中扮演的角色。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Without Dave Bartholomew, rock 'n' roll as we know it might not exist. He was a New Orleans legend - a trumpeter, a songwriter, bandleader and much more. Bartholomew died Sunday at the age of 100. Here's Nick Spitzer, folklorist at Tulane University and host of Public Radio's American Routes, with a remembrance. NICK SPITZER: Dave Bartholomew was born in Edgard, La., an Afro-Creole community upriver from New Orleans, surrounded by fields of sugar cane. His family moved to New Orleans, where his father was a barber and tuba player. His son's trumpet teacher was Peter Davis, who had taught Louis Armstrong. Dave Bartholomew learned early what he wanted to be in life. DAVE BARTHOLOMEW: I was cutting sugar cane one day, and it was Thanksgiving. And I started crying in the field. I only cut sugar cane once in my life for only three weeks. And I said, I got to be somebody. The only somebody I knew was that horn. I'm going to try to be something on that horn. DAVE BARTHOLOMEW: (Singing) I'm a little country boy running wild in this big, old town. I'm a little country boy running wild in this big, old town. NICK SPITZER: "Country Boy" - Dave Bartholomew singing 1949. Prior to that, he'd been in a World War II Army band. After the war, he served as the house bandleader at the Dew Drop Inn, where Bartholomew went on to add new sounds of jump jazz and bebop. NICK SPITZER: He backed artists like Paul Gayten and Annie Laurie, Roy Brown and Sam Cooke. Bartholomew's players became the studio band at the now-legendary J&M Studios in the French Quarter, where he recorded and produced sessions with Smiley Lewis, Snooks Eaglin, Professor Longhair, Little Richard and Fats Domino. The engineer was the late Cosimo Matassa. COSIMO MATASSA: If there hadn't been a Dave Bartholomew, there may not have been a Fats Domino. Everything was precise. Everything was rehearsed. Everybody better damn sure wear the same shirt, tie and suit. Dave was the disciplinarian. Dave kept everybody knowing, we're here to make a record. I know we're all having a good time, you know, but we're here to make records. NICK SPITZER: In 1949, Fats Domino made his first recordings after Bartholomew brought Imperial Records owner Lew Chudd to hear Fats at the Hideaway in the Lower 9th Ward. DAVE BARTHOLOMEW: When I recorded Fats Domino, Fats was playing a song called "The Junker Blues," talking about smoking weed, that type of thing. I say, well, I'm going to call this "The Fat Man." I'm going to call him Fats - Fats Domino. FATS DOMINO: (Singing) They call, they call me the fat man 'cause I weigh 200 pounds. All the girls - they love me 'cause I know my way around. NICK SPITZER: "The Fat Man" broke out of New Orleans with Fats Domino's rocking piano, sweet voice and Creole accent. Dave Bartholomew played trumpet and produced this and dozens of other hits, often with the distinctive New Orleans backbeat. By 1955, the duo would bring black and white teen audiences together at concerts in Northern cities when "Ain't That A Shame" went to the top 10. Dave Bartholomew wrote lyrics and shaped the sound for record sales that topped 65 million and made New Orleans rhythm and blues a key progenitor of rock 'n' roll. NICK SPITZER: Let's say goodbye with one of Dave Bartholomew's most beloved songs, "Blue Monday." DAVE BARTHOLOMEW: (Singing) Blue Monday - how I hate blue Monday - got to work like a slave all day. NICK SPITZER: For NPR news, I'm Nick Spitzer in New Orleans. DAVE BARTHOLOMEW: (Singing) Oh, hard Tuesday - I'm so tired. I ain't got no time to play. Here come Wednesday. I'm beat to my socks.

Without Dave Bartholomew, rock 'n' roll as we know it might not exist. The trumpeter, songwriter, bandleader, producer and arranger, died Sunday at 100 in New Orleans.

Ohne Dave Bartholomew gäbe es den Rock 'n' Roll, wie wir ihn kennen, vielleicht nicht. Der Trompeter, Komponist, Bandleader, Produzent und Arrangeur starb am Sonntag im Alter von 100 Jahren in New Orleans.

若没有戴夫·巴塞洛缪，可能也就不会有我们所知道的摇滚乐。这位小号手、作曲家、乐队指挥、制作人和编曲人周日在新奥尔良去世，享年100岁。

ALEX COHEN, host: This is Day to Day. I'm Alex Cohen. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And I'm Madeleine Brand. In a few minutes, the humor of Ricky Gervais, the British comedian. Here's a tip he'll explain later: Don't wear denim around owls. ALEX COHEN, host: But first, cyber war. Last summer, when fighting broke out between Georgia and Russia over the province of South Ossetia, the fighting wasn't limited to the battlefield. Hackers attacked official Georgian government Web sites, basically shutting down the country's access to the Internet. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Well, that got the attention of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Secretary ROBERT GATES (U.S. Department of Defense, George W. Bush Administration): As we know from recent experience, attacks on our communications system and infrastructure will be part of future war. MADELEINE BRAND, host: Officials say that government cyber networks in the U.S. are attacked maybe thousands of times a day or millions of times a year. ALEX COHEN, host: And that could have much bigger implications both online and off. NPR's J.J. Sutherland brings us this report. ALEX COHEN, host: J.J. SUTHERLAND: Here's the nightmare scenario - or one of them, anyway. You start talking to people about what could possibly happen in cyber war. You hear a lot of nightmares. This one is Sami Saydjari's. He runs a company called the Cyber Defense Agency. They consult with folks like the NSA, DOD and a bunch of other acronyms. Mr. SAMI SAYDJARI (President and Founder, Cyber Defense Agency): We believe that you can damage about 70 percent of the power grid, meaning bringing the power grid down for six months. And so, you might see a situation as bad as we saw with Katrina in the United States spread across the entire country - no power, no police, no phones. SUTHERLAND: Perhaps hyperbolic, but it's not just consultants who are talking what keeps them up at night. The attack on the Georgian Internet seems to be an obvious act of war by the Russians, no? Dr. JAMES LEWIS (Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies): First of all, we don't know it was the Russians, and the Russians are kind of gleeful about this. SUTHERLAND: James Lewis is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Dr. JAMES LEWIS (Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies): Everyone assumes it was the Russians. It was almost 100 percent certain that it's the Russians, but there's no evidence to show it was the Russians. So, that's the Russian line: Evidence? Show me the evidence. There is none. SUTHERLAND: There's no evidence because, as an old New Yorker cartoon says, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog - or a Russian intelligence agency, or a criminal, or a 15-year-old sitting in your parents' basement in Duluth. Mr. PAUL KURTZ (Partner, Good Harbor Consulting, LLC): That's one of the reasons why there are so many attacks, because if you're a bad guy, it's quite easy to get away with that, because the chances of getting caught are actually quite low. SUTHERLAND: Paul Kurtz is a partner with Good Harbor Consulting. He's advised President-elect Obama on cyber issues. Mr. PAUL KURTZ (Partner, Good Harbor Consulting, LLC): The attacks that are occurring against government and the defense-industrial base and some of the critical sectors have heavy indication of a nation state, if you will, Russia or China being behind them. SUTHERLAND: Kurtz points out, Georgia is not alone in being attacked. One attack last year on the Bank of India shut down its Web site for two days. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany complained to the Chinese government about cyber espionage. Britain's MI5 issued a letter to the country's top 300 companies, saying that Russia and China were targeting their data. All this raises the question: When is an act of cyber warfare, well, an act of war? The answer is, nobody knows. Again, James Lewis. Dr. JAMES LEWIS (Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies): One of the problems we're wrestling with is that the doctrine, the legal definitions are undefined. We are in cyber warfare, where we were for strategic conflict in the 1950s. We're kind of thrashing out doctrine and strategy. SUTHERLAND: Cold War doctrine worked because both the Soviet Union and the United States knew what the other side would do. It was clear. Everyone understood the rules. You do this; we do that. That isn't the case in this new, virtual battlefield. The U.S. military has some sort of cyber capability, but they won't tell anyone what it is, what it can do and when they might use it. Dr. JAMES LEWIS (Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies): We have a deterrent capability, but we've classified it top secret, so no one knows about it. It's like it's from "Dr. Strangelove," not a good approach. If you have a deterrent, tell the world and use it once or twice so they know you're serious. That's what we've got to do. SUTHERLAND: Lewis says we also have to change the very way we think about warfare. Dr. JAMES LEWIS (Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies): It's a different kind of conflict, and one of the things that people have had to come to grips with is that conflict has intangible elements, right? It's not blowing things up. It's not making things crash. It may not be violence the way we think about it. So, cyber war is something we're engaged in now. Some people would say that the conflict has already begun. SUTHERLAND: J.J. Sutherland, NPR News. ALEX COHEN, host: More coming up on Day to Day from NPR News.

When fighting broke out between Georgia and Russia this summer, the war was waged in both the online and physical world. Attacks on Georgian Web sites basically shut down the country's Internet operations. Now U.S. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates wonders what cyber warfare could mean at home.

Als in diesem Sommer Kämpfe zwischen Georgien und Russland ausbrachen, wurde der Krieg sowohl in der Online- als auch in der physischen Welt geführt. Angriffe auf georgische Websites haben den Internetbetrieb des Landes praktisch lahmgelegt. Nun fragt sich US-Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates, was Cyberkriegsführung im eigenen Land bedeuten könnte.

当今年夏天格鲁吉亚和俄罗斯之间爆发战争时，这场战争同时在网络和物理世界展开。对格鲁吉亚网站的攻击基本上关闭了该国的互联网业务。现在，美国国防部长罗伯特盖茨想知道网络战在美国国内意味着什么。

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: This is Lulu's log, stardate May 6, 2018 where we consider matters of space, the stars and the universe. And today we take a mission to Mars. NASA launched its InSight spacecraft yesterday. And after more than a six-month journey, it will reach the Red Planet. The goal - to understand what's happening below the surface of Mars. Oliver Morton is the author of "Mapping Mars: Science, Imagination And The Birth Of A World." He joins us from London to talk about the new mission. Welcome to the program. OLIVER MORTON: Nice to be here, Lulu. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Why study Mars's core? What can it teach us? OLIVER MORTON: We know the outside of Mars, and we understand the inside of the Earth. And one of the reasons we're interested in Mars is because it's a planet of a similar sort of size to the Earth and Venus. So getting into the interior of it will help us understand how long it took for it to cool down because it's now a cooler planet than the Earth. It no longer does all that exciting plate tectonic stuff that the Earth does. And we'll get a sense of how stiff the external crust is, how malleable the mantle is and whether the core is liquid or not. Those are all the things that really matter for the physics of the Earth, so we assume they're going to matter for the physics of Mars, too. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: The first successful Mars landing was almost 50 years ago, which is quite a while. And many have failed since then. Why? How hard is it actually to get there? OLIVER MORTON: It's getting easier. There used to be this myth in the space business that there was a great galactic ghoul which just ate up spacecrafts on their way to Mars. But recently, NASA's been pretty good at landing spacecrafts on Mars. And it landed a spacecraft very like this one on Mars a few years back. It was a spacecraft called Phoenix. So I'm not too worried about the landing here. Also, it's going to a very flat, easy, smooth bit of Mars, which always helps. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: What goes into planning a mission like this? OLIVER MORTON: Oh, in this case, about 20 years of the lives of many of the people involved. I mean, you're kind to mention my book. I wrote that quite some time ago. The mission that this has grown out of was already being discussed then. I mean, already at that point, people were thinking, we want to do the geophysics of Mars, not just the geology, not just the surface stuff. We want to understand the inside. And I was talking to Bruce Banerdt, who is the principal investigator on this mission, about his plan to put a whole network of seismometers on the surface of Mars. OLIVER MORTON: And, you know, gradually, that network got nibbled down from 20 to 16 to four. And now we're at one, which is the loneliest sort of network. Luckily, the technology improved. So you can now do a lot more with one seismometer than you would have been able to do then. You know, someone once told me, you've got to actually like planning space missions to enjoy a career in this sort of thing because the ones that actually succeed are few and far between. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: You've also written a book about geoengineering as a way to deal with climate change here on Earth. Do you think people should try and terraform Mars so we can live there? I mean, that is clearly something that has been floating around for a while. OLIVER MORTON: I think it's impossible to think about Mars without thinking about this because, you know, the great myth of Mars is a myth of geoengineering. The great myth of Mars is that Mars was once alive and slowly dried out and that the Martians tried to do something about it. So, you know, the idea that the Martians have an environmental problem and want to solve it is fundamental to how the 20th century thought about Mars. And it's been kind of fundamental to how we imagine the future of Mars. It's very hard to imagine a human future on Mars as it is, but one thing that matters a great deal is - although I think that it's quite unlikely that there's any extant life on Mars, that's something you really want to have a very good handle on before you even start thinking about terraforming it. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Oliver Morton is the author of "Mapping Mars: Science, Imagination And The Birth Of A World." And he's an editor at The Economist. Thank you so much for speaking with us. OLIVER MORTON: It was a pleasure, Lulu. OLIVER MORTON: (SOUNDBITE OF MOLIFE'S "ISM"

NASA is launching a probe to explore the center of Mars. NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Oliver Morton, author of Mapping Mars, about what scientists hope to learn.

Die NASA startet eine Sonde, um das Zentrum des Mars zu erkunden. Lulu Garcia-Navarro vom NPR spricht mit Oliver Morton, Autor von Mapping Mars, darüber, was Wissenschaftler zu lernen hoffen.

美国宇航局正在发射探测器探索火星中心。美国国家公共广播电台新闻的露露·加西亚-纳瓦罗与《火星地图》的作者奥利弗·莫顿谈论了科学家们希望了解的东西。

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: We begin this hour with Syria and the testimony of people who say they were wounded in a chemical attack on the town of Douma near Damascus. The U.S. says it believes the Syrian government is behind the apparent attack. And last week, President Trump responded with missile strikes on government military targets in Syria. But the facts of what happened in Douma April 7 are still unclear. The world's international chemical weapons watchdog has launched an investigation, and they've just finally reached Douma. And slowly, eyewitness testimony is starting to emerge. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: NPR's correspondent Ruth Sherlock and Beirut producer Lama Al-Arian gained rare access to Syria. They crossed from the Turkish border to meet with Syrians who have just escaped from Douma. Now they're back in Turkey. And Ruth joins us on the line. Good morning. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Good morning. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Ruth, just briefly - where is the OPCW investigation at right now? They gained access to Douma. What did they find? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: That's right. They went in on Saturday. But now, you know, it's a full two weeks after the attack happened. They've had some problems accessing the site before, and there's also been accusations that Russia - the regime's - Syrian regime's ally may have tampered with the evidence at the site. Russia denies that. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: In your trip inside Syria, you met with people who told you that they were affected by what they called a chemical attack. Tell us about what they said. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Well, we met several people who said they'd experienced the attack. Some of them were visibly ill and they said it was from the chemical gas that they'd inhaled. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Speaking in Arabic). RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: In one of the tents, we met a man who identified himself as Abu Faisal. He was pallid and thin and clearly very sick. He lay under a gray blanket on a thin mattress in his tent, and he struggled for breath as he talked to us. At one point, he had to stop to use an inhaler. He says he was caught in the thick, yellow smoke of what he thinks was a chlorine gas bomb. ABU FAISAL: (Speaking in Arabic). RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Here, he says he was taken to a medical clinic that was in chaos from the flood of patients. He says, "I heard one doctor tell the others, this person is finished. And then I realized he was talking about me." He says the doctors moved on to other patients but had very few medicines. He said they had to treat about 15 people with one normal asthma inhaler just like the one he was holding in our interview. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: There's been years of violence in Douma. Did he talk to you about that? Who is he? RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Yes. So he was a rebel fighter in Douma. But he said that one of the most frightening things was actually leaving the front line and going to his home to see if his family was safe because there was so much bombing - those barrel bombs that seemed to hit indiscriminately across the area. And he tells us that he also experienced another chemical attack a few weeks ago that was different from this most recent attack. He says he believes it was launched by the regime. And as he talks to us about this through an interpreter, he breaks down into tears. ABU FAISAL: (Through interpreter) They used the chemical attack at the beginning of the military campaign when they started targeting Ghouta. It was, like, unbelievable. It's like hell what we faced in Douma. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Like so many of the people who we spoke to from Douma, he just looked physically and emotionally broken. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: That's NPR's Ruth Sherlock. She and producer Lama Al-Arian were just in Syria. Thank you so much. RUTH SHERLOCK, BYLINE: Thank you.

A team of inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has visited Douma in Syria to investigate an alleged chemical weapons attack there two weeks ago.

Ein Team von Inspektoren der Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen hat Douma in Syrien besucht, um dort vor zwei Wochen einen mutmaßlichen Chemiewaffenangriff zu untersuchen.

禁止化学武器组织的一个视察队访问了叙利亚的杜马，调查两周前那里发生的一起据称的化学武器袭击事件。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: And now the Opinion Page. Two more American service members were killed last week in Afghanistan by a gunman wearing an Afghan police uniform, the latest casualties from a series of so-called green-on-blue attacks. U.S. troops temporarily cut back on joint operations with Afghan security forces last month amid a flurry of questions about the goals of the mission in Afghanistan and the timing of the transition out. A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that six in 10 Americans say U.S. troops should be removed from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Just over a third believe they should remain until the situation is stabilized. NEAL CONAN, HOST: In a piece in the Washington Post, retired Army officer John Nagl argued that the United States has forgotten what losing a war actually looks like. Despite the miasma of discontent with effort, he wrote, the United States and its many allies are not losing in Afghanistan. We'd like to hear from those of you who served in Afghanistan. Based on what you saw, what's been accomplished? What still worries you? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl joins us now by smartphone from his home in Alexandria, Virginia. He's a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Minerva Research professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. Nice to have you back on the program. JOHN NAGL: It's great to be back, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I know Alexandria is near by the water. I hope you're dry. JOHN NAGL: We are not dry, but we are not yet storm surged and not yet under water. So we're - the glass is still only half-full, which is good in this case. NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK. If the United States, though, needs a reminder of what losing a war looks like, you say go back to 1975. JOHN NAGL: Correct. So in Vietnam, of course, the United States lost, utterly and completely were forced out. And the photograph that most Americans remember is of helicopters departing from the roof of the embassy. The photos I remember are pushing perfectly good Huey helicopters off of aircraft carrier landing decks into the ocean to make room for more helicopters as the evacuation continued. And there is, I think, no risk that we will be forced from Afghanistan and that we will not be able to stay there to continue to pursue our interest in the region. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That loss, of course, had other effects, mostly on the people of Vietnam and, of course, on the United States Army itself. JOHN NAGL: And on the people of Cambodia, as well. I would argue that the Khmer Rouge came to power in no small part as a result of our failings in Vietnam. And so one of the points I wanted to emphasize in this article is that there is loose talk about losing a war as if we could do so, as if we could walk away from Afghanistan without concern for our interests, those of the Afghan people or those of the region. And I simply don't think that's the case. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is an image that many Americans have of what winning a war looks like. They think back to 1991, what we now call the First Gulf War. JOHN NAGL: They do, and I actually was a part of that war. I had a tank platoon in the 1st Cavalry Division. And it was - it appeared to be, at least, clean and neat and simple. Of course, what historians are now beginning to recognize is that that war continued for the remainder of the decade and beyond. And so wars, I think, particularly wars against non-state actors like the ones we're facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan are unlikely to end, even as neatly as Desert Storm apparently did. These are long, protracted wars. The United States has interest. They are going to continue, and I'm afraid we're going to continue to pay a price in order to attempt to achieve them for many years still to come. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet the public opinion polls we mentioned earlier, 60 percent of Americans think it's time to get out. Indeed, we should've gotten out before. JOHN NAGL: I think one of the failings of both of the last two administrations has been a failure to explain to the American people how long this war against al-Qaida and its affiliates is likely to be, how deep and severe the problems are, not just in Afghanistan but particularly in Pakistan, and how those issues inside Pakistan in particular are going to remain a threat to the American people and to the free world for literally decades to come. So we haven't done a good job of explaining what it is we're trying to accomplish nor what our strategy is to achieve those goals. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet, everybody is talking towards 2014 and the transition of the major combat role from U.S.-led forces and NATO forces to Afghan forces. JOHN NAGL: And that transition, I argue, should happen and will happen. But what no one is talking about is 2015 and beyond. The United States and Afghanistan already signed a framework agreement which states that the United States will continue to provide security assistance to Afghanistan for at least a decade to come after that 2014 transition. JOHN NAGL: And it's my argument that that is very strongly in America's interest, that we need special forces and U.S. Air Force assets - including drone assets - to operate from Afghanistan in order to secure our interests in the region, many of them inside Pakistan, a state with which we are not at war. Pakistan is officially a U.S. ally. But, of course, we do conduct operations inside Pakistan against enemy interests both to Pakistan and to the United States. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yet doesn't this series of inside attacks, those green-on-blue attacks, people in Afghan army uniforms, boy, that reminds a lot of people of what the army of the Republic of Vietnam started to look like towards the end. JOHN NAGL: I actually think that that's a disservice to the army of the Republic of Vietnam. By the end of the war in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese army was pretty strong, was capable, with U.S. assistance, particularly U.S. air power, of stopping the Easter Offensive in '72. And many people, myself included, believe that had the United States continued to provide air power, some advisors could have held in 1975, as well. So one of the points of comparison that is not helpful, actually, to those who advocate for continued interest in Afghanistan is that the Afghan army is not as good as the South Vietnamese army was by the end of our efforts there. JOHN NAGL: We started the efforts to raise the Afghan military comparatively late. We didn't put very much effort or very good effort into it for a number of years. Iraq really took all the oxygen out of the room and kept us from focusing on the war in Afghanistan. And these green-on-blue attacks in which Afghans in military uniforms attack U.S. and allied soldiers are a real threat to our strategy. So I'm not downplaying that at all. I find that extremely worrisome. I think what we're seeing now is mistakes of previous years coming home to roost. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is that, but there's also this - the fact that this war has already lasted longer than Vietnam. And it's not just a public opinion that's grown tired. Earlier this month, just a couple of days before you wrote your piece, the New York Times editorial argued it's time to pack up. It should not take more than a year, The Times editorial wrote. The United States will not achieve even President Obama's narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm. JOHN NAGL: In some ways, I published my piece in response to The New York Times piece. And I think what The New York Times failed to notice, failed to understand is that the American interests are going to demand that we have bases in the region for a number of years to come. So The New York Times knows well that Pakistan confronts a number of insurgencies, has a rapidly growing nuclear stockpile with uncertain-at-best controls over those weapons, as well the United States has real humanitarian interests in preventing Afghanistan from falling again into civil war. JOHN NAGL: Were any of those things do happen, were the United States to follow the principles The New York Times pointed out in that editorial, were the U.S. to withdraw completely, I think all of those things would happen. I think we'd see civil war inside Afghanistan. I think we'd be less able to confront terrorist insurgents inside Pakistan's borders, and I think that very, very bad things would be likely to happen as a result. And The New York Times would then write better op-eds wondering why it was that the United States' policy had failed so completely. JOHN NAGL: The fact is that we need bases inside Afghanistan. To operate from those bases, we need the Afghan government to hold together to at least a reasonable amount. And that's going to demand a continuing U.S. effort for many years to come. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with John Nagl, who retired from the United States Army with the rank of lieutenant colonel, now a Minerva professor at the United States Naval Academy, non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. And we want to hear from those of you who served in Afghanistan: What's been accomplished? What remains to worry you? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Douglas is on the line with us from South Bend in Indiana. DOUGLAS: Hello. How are you guys today? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Good, thanks. JOHN NAGL: Hey, Douglas. DOUGLAS: When I served in Afghanistan, which was in 2008 and - through 2009, I was stationed in Kabul. I was with a command that was tasked with training the national army and the national police. I thought it was very advantageous what we were doing. We were, I think, doing very good work. We also were training their medics. It was a good experience, and I got a better understanding of what's going on there. And I think that probably things have changed somewhat since I've been there, like, there's been the surge and so on. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Were you, at that time, concerned about the possibility that the people you were training would turn their weapons on you? DOUGLAS: It never once crossed my mind at that time. I - maybe I was not paying attention, but I actually don't think that's the case. But I do think that they were very - the people I talked with - and I was with a unit that actually covered as far as what we call public affairs. Every indication I had when I was - when I went around to different training camps was that people were very happy to be doing what they were doing, and that we were helping them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Nagl, given Douglas' experience - and I don't think he's alone in this - the very fact that this is being wrapped up so quickly, it's causing difficulties in screening out people who may be Taliban infiltrators. As you suggest, this is a highly challenging tactic that they're using. But they're not all Taliban. JOHN NAGL: Oh, no, by no means. And it's important to remember the time at which Douglas had his experience. He was there in 2008 and 2009, as we were starting to put resources into raising the Afghan army, but we hadn't really redoubled our efforts yet. And I think it's important to remember how bad the situation in Afghanistan turned out to be. When President Obama took over in 2009, he ended up deciding to triple U.S. forces in Afghanistan over the course of his first year in office, over the course of 2009. And that really accelerated the training of the Afghan National Army. As a result of speeding up that process, some bad apples slipped through. JOHN NAGL: But I also think we're seeing indications that the Taliban has come up with a new strategy of infiltrating the Afghan security forces and having its operatives inside kill, attack American and NATO forces. And they're finding great success with it. It's such a successful strategy that I hesitate to talk about it, because it is a real threat to the center of gravity of the U.S. effort, which is U.S. public opinion in support of a continuing advisory effort for years to come. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Douglas, thanks very much for the call. DOUGLAS: Well, thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Nagl is with us on the Opinion Page. There's a link to his piece, "Not Losing in Afghanistan," which ran last week in The Washington Post, at our website. Just go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. And Jonathan's on the line with us from Cincinnati. JONATHAN: Yes, sir. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You're on the air. Go ahead, please. JONATHAN: The main thing with the war in Afghanistan - I served from September of last year to March of this year and - and with the Afghan National Army, when we got there, they were brand new. They were new recruits. And the things that concerned us is we were fighting marijuana pretty much. They were getting high. They weren't going on patrols, and then we would - we'd give them a mission, and then we'd end up going out and doing it. JONATHAN: After that, we - they started giving all their uniforms over to the Taliban. They were related to a lot of Taliban, and it turns out in Helmand Province, were fighting uncles, brothers and, you know, other family members that are from the Afghan National Army or police. JONATHAN: And so by the end of my seven months, we actually had one really good police force in one small town called Shir Ghazi. But in other towns around that area, a lot of the police were actually Taliban, and we ended up having several IEDs planted by police and ended up killing several men in police uniforms. And it's just - it's really frustrating, because it seems like 10 years of war, you can't get any headway with them. And, you know, they're very slow to learn. They're just - they just like to relax, and it's a bit frustrating for us, because we're just taken all the weight. NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Nagl, how do we change that situation? JOHN NAGL: I think Jonathan is describing very accurately what happened as we rapidly expanded the Afghan security forces as we pushed into the areas in the south of Afghanistan, the south and east of Afghanistan where the Taliban is strongest, where large numbers of the population actually have relatives connected with the Taliban. And in some cases, they're hedging their bets. They've got one son fighting with the Taliban and another son inside the Afghan security forces. JOHN NAGL: And so Jonathan's experience hints at how long and how hard this effort is going to be if we're going to succeed in it, that the human capital inside Afghanistan is really severely stunted after literally 30 consecutive years of war, that the sanctuaries across the Durand Line inside Pakistan give real succor to the Taliban, give them strength and the ability to regenerate and mean that this is going to have to be a long-term effort if Afghanistan is going to stand against the Taliban. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan, thanks very much. JONATHAN: OK. Thank you, sir. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, John Nagl, you've said that the last two administrations have been - given short shrift to persuading the American people of the importance that this mission continue. How would - it's very barely been mentioned in the presidential campaign. How would you - what would you do to convince the American people? And again, looking at those opinion polls, you've got an uphill climb. JOHN NAGL: Well, there's something quite ironic about all of this. As a former soldier myself, I strongly believe the American people should be engaged in their wars. They have been very supportive of the troops, even if they haven't understood the strategy or what's at stake. On the other hand, although the American people are not strongly in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan - that's obviously an understatement - they aren't that concerned about it. And so the level of intensity isn't very high. JOHN NAGL: This gives whatever administration comes to power in 2013 a great freedom of action to do essentially what they want to do in Afghanistan, continue the effort there as both President Obama and Governor Romney have promised they are going to do. JOHN NAGL: So there isn't clash between the two parties on this issue. Both agree - both Governor Romney and President Obama agree with the current strategy. And my sense is that although the American people aren't happy about it, they're going to allow this to continue. They're going to focus on domestic issues, and the United States' defense establishment, the national security establishment, will be able to do what I believe it needs to do: maintain bases in the region, continue operations in the region, even understanding that it is going to continue to cost us some of our sons and daughters. NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Nagl, thanks very much for your time today. JOHN NAGL: It's good talking to you, Neal, NEAL CONAN, HOST: Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl joined us from his home in Alexandria, Virginia. Again, there's a link to his Washington Post piece "Not Losing in Afghanistan" on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We also continue to watch the effects of Hurricane Sandy. Stay with NPR News for the latest on the storm as it makes it way towards the East Coast. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington.

In a piece in the Washington Post, retired Army officer John Nagl argues that the U.S. has forgotten what losing a war really looks like. Nagl talks about what's been accomplished in Afghanistan, and the concerns that remain. Read John Nagl's Op-Ed, 'Not Losing In Afghanistan'

In einem Artikel in der Washington Post argumentiert der pensionierte Armeeoffizier John Nagl, dass die USA vergessen haben, wie es wirklich aussieht, einen Krieg zu verlieren. Nagl spricht über das, was in Afghanistan erreicht wurde, und über die Bedenken, die weiterhin bestehen. Lesen Sie John Nagls Op-Ed "In Afghanistan nicht verlieren (Not Losing In Afghanistan)"

在《华盛顿邮报》的一篇文章中，退役陆军军官约翰·纳格尔指出，美国已经忘记了输掉一场战争的真实情况是怎样的。纳格尔谈到了美国在阿富汗取得的成就，以及仍然存在的问题。敬请阅读约翰·纳格尔的专栏文章《美国在阿富汗还没有输》。

NOEL KING, HOST: We are in the middle of another tense moment between the U.S. and Iran. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Iran's Revolutionary Guard announced overnight that it has shot down a U.S. drone. A U.S. official has confirmed to NPR that the aircraft has been downed but disputes Tehran's account of the facts. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Peter Kenyon is in Istanbul. He's been following this story. Hi, Peter. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Hi, Noel. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. So a lot remains to be seen. But what do we know so far? PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Well, we know that an unmanned U.S. military drone has been taken down, and we know Iran was responsible. The report first came in from an Iranian news site that's linked to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was picked up by the state news agency. After an initial U.S. response that did not appear to confirm the downing, an American official does confirm to NPR and others that the drone was indeed shot down. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. But there is a dispute over where it was shot down, right? Iran says it shot down the drone over its airspace; the U.S. says it was over international waters. Why is this significant? PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Well, I'll tell you why it's significant - because it's a question of whether this was a defensive move or not. This was the cause of some confusion early on. After the initial Iranian reports, which said it happened inside Iranian airspace over southern Iran, the U.S. military's response was very narrow - said we didn't have any aircraft operating in Iranian airspace Wednesday. Then a bit later, officials began saying the shoot-down did occur but it was in international waters. And that would seem a move to undermine any effort by Iran to call this a matter of defensiveness. NOEL KING, HOST: Interesting. So once that is established, it could mean a lot. I mean, Peter, you've been on with us the past couple of weeks talking about this... PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Yeah. NOEL KING, HOST: ...Back and forth and how it's been escalating. And you know, the context is really important. How big is this development this morning? PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Well, it's definitely big. How big depends, probably, on the U.S. response, first of all. It certainly could escalate the situation further. This was, on the one hand, an unmanned aircraft - a pilotless aircraft, I guess I should say. That's important because, as you know, the Trump administration has warned that the death of even a single American in this dispute could lead to a really strong response. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: So militarily, this hasn't altered the situation very much. But as an act of aggression, this could be seen in Washington as justifying a strong response. So in terms of ratcheting up tensions, this could be a lot more significant than the physical loss of one drone. There will likely be voices inside the administration saying this demands a response, and a lot could depend on what kind of response that turns out to be. NOEL KING, HOST: Peter, is there precedent for this? Has Iran shot down a U.S. drone ever before? PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Years ago - several years ago, they were parading a drone that they claimed to have captured. There were some disputes about the circumstances. There were no huge escalations and tension surrounding that. NOEL KING, HOST: So I know it is hard to predict. But what do you imagine happens next? PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Well, the one thing we're not seeing in the immediate aftermath is cooler heads prevailing. The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard is already saying, hey, we're sending a clear message to America. Commander Hossein Salami says they're not looking for war but will react strongly against any aggression. And we should note, this is different from previous incidents. This is a U.S. military aircraft - a direct attack, and that's why some will be calling for a response. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Peter Kenyon in Istanbul. Thanks, Peter. PETER KENYON, BYLINE: Thanks, Noel. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. Joe Biden is in hot water yet again. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: He intended to highlight his track record of working with lawmakers that he doesn't agree with. The problem is the example that Biden chose to cite. He recounted working with two senators who are known for supporting racist policies. Biden's 2020 Democratic rivals were quick to criticize. The presidential hopeful made the remarks at a New York City fundraiser Tuesday night. Since then, the former vice president has said he has nothing to apologize for. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's political correspondent Scott Detrow is in studio with us. Good morning, Scott. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Hey. Good morning. NOEL KING, HOST: So what did Joe Biden say exactly? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Yeah. So he was talking about how he's been criticized for trying to work with Republicans. So at this fundraiser, he talked about working with Mississippi Senator James Eastland, Georgia Senator Herman Talmadge, who were both Democrats but they were both staunch segregationists - that's to say, they pushed for policies that kept people separated based on race and opposed things like civil rights legislation. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: So talking about Eastland in particular, Biden said - and here are the two quotes - "he never called me boy. He always called me son." And he went on to say, "at least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn't agree on much of anything, but we got things done." SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Eastland, in particular, was unapologetically racist. There are some shocking quotes from him during the Montgomery bus boycott, talking about Martin Luther King and other marchers in very graphic terms and talking about abolishing the African-American race as a whole. NOEL KING, HOST: Oh... SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: This was not nuanced... NOEL KING, HOST: ...My goodness SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: ...Language. NOEL KING, HOST: So obviously, here, there is an opening for the other Democratic candidates to criticize Biden. What are they saying? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: The criticism was pretty harsh and quick. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker came out with a strong statement saying, you don't joke about calling black men boys. Vice President Biden's relationships with proud segregationists are not the model for how we make America a safer and more inclusive place for black people and for everyone. He called on Biden to apologize. Kamala Harris, another black candidate in the race, another U.S. senator, said this at the U.S. Capitol. KAMALA HARRIS: I have a great deal of respect for Vice President Biden. But to coddle the reputations of segregationists, of people who if they had their way, I would literally not be standing here as a member of the United States Senate, is, I think - it's just - it's misinformed, and it's wrong. NOEL KING, HOST: And as Rachel said there, Biden has not apologized - or had not apologized. What is he saying to explain himself? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Yeah. He was at another fundraiser last night, and he said this. JOE BIDEN: Not a racist bone in my body - I've been involved in civil rights my whole career - period, period, period. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: And on top of that, he said that Cory Booker is the one who needs to apologize, which certainly surprised a lot of people hearing that comment. Biden supporters have been pointing out that he has repeatedly said the reason he decided to run in 2020 was President Trump's equivocating response on the violent Charlottesville white supremacist rally, that Biden has worked for civil rights legislation throughout his career and, among other things, is very proud to have been Barack Obama's vice president. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Jim Clyburn is the highest-ranking African-American lawmaker in the House, and he defended him, as well, yesterday. He told reporters, you don't have to agree with someone to work with them. NOEL KING, HOST: OK. So we're entering a new phase of the 2020 presidential election. Debates start next week. Is this just what we should expect going forward? SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Yeah. I think we were expecting already a lot of the other candidates to really start criticizing Joe Biden, in particular, on this debate stage. He has a wide lead in the polls, and, you know, he has this more moderate approach to governing than a lot of the rest of the field. So far, the criticism we're starting to hear has been implicit, talking generally about his policies but not saying Joe Biden in particular. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: I think this moment really broke the dam, and a lot of candidates are saying Joe Biden is wrong. And we're going to expect to hear a lot more of that next week and going forward. NOEL KING, HOST: And Joe Biden, of course, been around a long time and has a lot of baggage. NPR's Scott Detrow. Thanks so much, Scott. SCOTT DETROW, BYLINE: Thank you. NOEL KING, HOST: China's president, Xi Jinping, and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, are holding two days of talks starting today. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And the location of these talks is significant. They're happening in Pyongyang, North Korea. It marks the first time in 14 years that a Chinese leader has made a state visit to North Korea. And the meeting comes a little over a week before the G-20 nations hold their summit in Osaka, Japan. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Anthony Kuhn is in Seoul, South Korea. Hi, Anthony. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Hey, Noel. NOEL KING, HOST: All right. So why is President Xi going to North Korea? - first time in 14 years for a Chinese leader. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, the official reason is that the two countries are going to mark the 70th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations between Beijing and Pyongyang. And that means you're going to hear a lot of talk about socialist solidarity between comrades - the ruling Communist Party of China and the Worker's Party of North Korea - probably something about ties forged in blood in reference to the fact that they fought on the same side in the Korean War. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: But they also have not had a Chinese leader in Pyongyang for so long, mostly because of the nuclear dispute. But now, look at the timing that you mentioned here. President Xi and President Trump spoke by phone this week, then Xi and Trump are going to meet in Osaka, Japan, after - with the Pyongyang meeting in between. So what's very likely, experts believe, is that Trump may have asked Xi by phone, get me some information on what Kim is thinking. And Xi may even deliver a message to Trump in Osaka. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: So this really puts, you know, Xi Jinping in an interesting position as possibly a broker. NOEL KING, HOST: It certainly does. So if he played broker, what would that mean, for example, with the ongoing U.S.-China trade war? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, the U.S. has made it clear that cooperation on North Korea would help China on the trade war. And clearly, the trade war is Xi Jinping's biggest headache right now. It's hurting the Chinese economy. And if there's no progress in talks in Osaka, then President Trump has threatened to hit just about all Chinese exports to the U.S. with tariffs - or at least those which have not been hit already. NOEL KING, HOST: Anthony, these summits are often aimed at telegraphing something to someone. If there is a message that this summit is sending to the U.S., what is that message? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Well, from Xi's point of view, he's sort of sending the message that he can make or break a deal between the U.S. and North Korea. He wrote, in an op-ed piece in a North Korean newspaper, that he wants to push talks forward. He can also turn Kim against Trump, which Trump has sort of suggested in tweets before. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: But Xi is sending a positive message this time. He doesn't need to send a spoiler message because everybody knows that. China can also do things such as sending a lot of tourists to North Korea or sending humanitarian food aid, both of which would help Kim but would not violate any sanctions. Also, remember that Kim Jong Un has refused further summits - for the moment - with the U.S. and South Korea. NOEL KING, HOST: Yeah. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: But Kim has met with China and Russia. So he's signaling there that he has other options. If things don't work out with the U.S., he has a fallback position, which is support from China and Russia. NOEL KING, HOST: And is this summit, just briefly, likely to be a very public one - photographers, all of that? ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Yes, there will be lots of pomp and ceremony. But there may also be a lot which is hidden and we don't find out about. NOEL KING, HOST: NPR's Anthony Kuhn in Seoul. Anthony, thanks so much. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: You're welcome.

Iran says it shot down a U.S. spy drone in its airspace. Joe Biden's recent comment draws heat from his 2020 presidential rivals. China's president holds two days of talks with North Korea's leader.

Der Iran sagt, er habe eine US-Spionagedrohne in seinem Luftraum abgeschossen. Joe Bidens jüngster Kommentar zieht die Aufmerksamkeit seiner Präsidentschaftsrivalen von 2020 auf sich. Chinas Präsident führt zweitägige Gespräche mit dem nordkoreanischen Staatschef.

伊朗称在其领空击落一架美国无人侦察机。乔·拜登最近的言论引发其2020年总统竞选对手的热议。中国国家主席与朝鲜领导人进行了为期两天的会谈。

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Let's talk basketball for a minute. The men's NBA season is officially over. The Toronto Raptors have won their first NBA championship. And now the big news in the men's game is the upcoming draft and the big trades, like Anthony Davis heading to the Lakers. So we thought this might be a good time to explore how teams decide. And while there's been a lot of talk these days about the growing power of agents and big-name players, increasingly, teams are using advanced analytics, really detailed performance data to determine whom to hire. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: And Jalen Rose has some thoughts about that. Jalen Rose is a former college basketball star, a member of the University of Michigan's Fab Five, a former NBA player. And he's now a prominent sports analyst on multiple shows on ESPN and elsewhere. In a recent conversation with The New Yorker Magazine, Rose argued that the increased reliance on analytics over things like playing experience make it harder for former players, many of whom are minorities, to get high-level positions. I called him to ask him to tell me more. JALEN ROSE: There became an amazing groundswell of opportunities that presented themselves in powerful positions, whether general manager, president and/or an entire department now that organizations are dedicating themselves to making sure they are on top of the analytics. And they're able to decipher not only what you see, but obviously they're able to detect it via the numbers. JALEN ROSE: So I understand, and I appreciate having all of the information. But at some point, there still has to be some level of logic, expertise. Your eye test has to be something that you're able to trust along with your instincts to make that big final decision. I just always felt like analytics should be a tool - a wrench, a hammer - that's a part of the tool box, not necessarily the end-all, be-all to a final decision. And it definitely should not be the sole reason why somebody is put into a powerful position. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: In a way, I feel like you're saying that, well, you're saying a couple of things that people have seen in other fields. They feel that, say, algorithms are replacing human judgment. And it also - what I hear you saying is that this is a way to kind of keep the club the way it's always been. Now that more African Americans are getting the experience to move into these front office positions, you have the feeling that perhaps this reliance on data is a way to kind of keep it as the club that it's always been that has not been particularly diverse. Is that what you see? JALEN ROSE: Well, I'm just really talking about the landscape as I see it and acknowledging how that did take place based on the dynamics you just described. It's just that what ended up happening with those jobs and the dynamics of professional sports. If you look from the top down, there needs to be more diversity in the powerful positions. JALEN ROSE: And a lot of times, the numbers became a catalyst to say, here's an opportunity. Oh, and by the way, since you know analytics, you get pushed to the front of the line. And if you look in the NBA and in many professional sports, there isn't a lot of diversity amongst those who got their position based on the fact that they were really good at crunching the numbers and doing analytics. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what kind of reaction are you getting? JALEN ROSE: A lot of support. And the great thing about being open-minded and trying to always be fair, you hear it from all sides. And when people have a good point, you acknowledge it. And when you feel like what you're saying and what you believe is what it's going to be, then and you just own it. MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: That was ESPN analyst former, NBA player Jalen Rose. We're talking about a piece that just posted in The New Yorker called "Jalen Rose Has A Problem With Basketball Analytics." And we reached him in Oakland. Jalen Rose, thanks so much for talking to us. JALEN ROSE: Thank you kindly. Have a great day.

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with ESPN analyst Jalen Rose about why he thinks advanced analytics is hindering diversity hiring in the NBA.

Michel Martin von NPR spricht mit dem ESPN-Analysten Jalen Rose darüber, warum er glaubt, dass die fortschrittliche Analytik die Vielfalt bei der Einstellung in der NBA behindert.

美国全国公共广播电台的米歇尔·马丁与娱乐与体育电视网的分析师贾伦·罗斯谈论了为什么他认为高级分析阻碍了NBA的多元化招聘。

NEAL CONAN: Are you ready for Winter Storm Walda or Blizzard Brutus? Starting now, The Weather Channel will dub snow and ice events with the same kinds of monikers given to hurricanes and tropical storms for decades. Some object that since there's no simple formula like wind speed, the naming threshold will not be objective. Others complain that such decisions ought to be left by - to the National Weather Service and not made by a private company. We want to hear from the meteorologists in our audience. Is this a good idea? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website, that's at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN: Bryan Norcross joins us from the studios of The Weather Channel in Atlanta where he's the senior director of weather content. And it's good of you to be with us today. BRYAN NORCROSS: Thanks, Neal. NEAL CONAN: And how are you going to decide which storms qualify for a name and which don't? BRYAN NORCROSS: Well, we have a team of senior meteorologists, winter weather specialists that will make the determination based on three really straightforward factors. The first is according to our forecast - and we have a team here of many meteorologists that actually contribute to the forecast. But are we thinking that there's going to be a significant impact due to snow or ice on an area in the next three days. So that would be a fixed threshold that we would subjectively apply. But I think most people would agree on what that means or understand what that means. BRYAN NORCROSS: Secondly, would it have a significant impact on air or road travel if a forecast is right? There's never any guarantee, of course, of a forecast being right. But if our forecast comes to verify, would it impact air and road travel? And thirdly, might it cause life-threatening conditions due to snow, ice or wind of a winter storm? In other words, a winter rainstorm would not normally qualify for a name in our criteria. So the senior meteorologist would evaluate the forecast and say it meets these thresholds or it doesn't. And if it does, then we would go ahead and consider naming it. NEAL CONAN: Email from Tim who says: While naming winter storms is a good idea as it will allow people to follow a major storm across the country, I do see a problem. Major storm for Texas in the winter where freezing rain may cause a problem is very different than a storm in North Dakota where five inches of snow and 30-mile-an-hour winds can cause major problems. Is there a size qualifier of a name storm? Is there pressure qualifier for a name storm? BRYAN NORCROSS: The qualifier really is significant impact. And his question is exactly the point, in why with winter storms, it really can't be objective, purely objective because it doesn't take much to disrupt Dallas or Atlanta where it takes a lot more to disrupt North Dakota. Grand Forks had a pretty good snow storm earlier this year, but they went to school that day, and the highways were open, and people went to work. So we did not name that because it did not qualify under the significant impact to air and road travel. And really, that's why, after a lot of thinking about this - and we've been working on this for a year - we decided that an objective standard was just not going to work for exactly that reason. NEAL CONAN: And there's more than a few people who say, wait a minute. Those hurricane standards, they may be objective. We got to find new ways to measure hurricanes too. It's the storm surge that matters more than the wind speed. BRYAN NORCROSS: Well, in hurricanes, that's very true. It's - it depends on the storm, right? And Hurricane Andrew in 1992, it was all about the wind because the storm surge, as fierce as it was, did not hit a populated area. But in other storms like Isaac, it was, of course, not all about the wind. It was all about the storm surge. So NASA Hurricane Center - and we work very, very closely with them here at The Weather Channel - is working on ways to discuss wind and storm surge separately so that the appropriate warning is to be made based on a specific phenomenon. So that's really a different kind of discussion, but it is a significant communications problem. NEAL CONAN: And there is a National Hurricane Center. Is there a national winter storm center? BRYAN NORCROSS: No, there isn't, and that's one reason that we took this on because we thought, based on a set of experiences that we've had - and I've been doing hurricanes for decades. And one of those experiences is that when a tropical system gets named, just the fact that it gets named raises the thinking and the profile of it with the public. More people start talking about them. More people start paying attention. So that's one factor. BRYAN NORCROSS: Another is that in Europe they've been naming winter storms going back into the '50s, and its just commonplace there and it works. In newspaper headlines you'll see the names. Some countries like Norway name their storms specifically, and it's just become part of life there. BRYAN NORCROSS: And thirdly, in the modern world of Twitter and hashtags and so forth, storms need names. You've got to push hash something when you're talking about it in a tweet. And so you end up putting, you know, #snowinwashington or some kind of thing. Or last year we came up with #snowtober for the October storm, just about exactly a year ago. And that took off and became very common. So that's really what triggered us to go down this road. And as I said, we've been working on it for about a year. NEAL CONAN: Well, you mentioned snowtober. What, two or three years ago, there was a snowpocalypse here in Washington, D.C. BRYAN NORCROSS: Right. And snowmageddon. NEAL CONAN: And snowmageddon. And, of course, the, well, more precisely named the Blizzard of '88. What's wrong with those names? BRYAN NORCROSS: Well, they're fine, except that now, you know, every - people want to talk about every system that comes along that's significant. And so what has evolved, really, because, you know, things are moving so fast. It's only been the last couple years that this issue of social media has dominated so many parts of communication, that we found that when the storms would be coming along, we would be racking our brains in trying to be clever at the moment. BRYAN NORCROSS: So we thought, you know, let's try and standardize this, put some thought behind this, have a plan ahead of time so that people can anticipate what at least The Weather Channel is going to do and what we're talking about, and when you see tweets from The Weather Channel and you see other communications on our websites and our mobile platforms, that, you know, we communicate with literally tens of millions of people over these platforms every day, that there would be consistency across that and people would know what to expect. So that's why we went down the road. BRYAN NORCROSS: It was actually driven as much by the social media component of it, where we were going to be forced to come up with some kind of name anyway for all of these platforms as any other aspect of it, although, you know, we had been talking about it even before snowtober came along. NEAL CONAN: The names picked, well, a lot of them are Greek and Roman gods. But there are a few that are - well, I guess, there are some Norse gods as well. But there's great villains, Iago, of course, from "Othello," the Shakespearian play. But a lot of people say Gandalf? Gandalf, really? He was so nice. BRYAN NORCROSS: Well, the naming thing was really interesting. We struggled with this. Where would the names come from? How would we do it? And what we really decided to do after a lot of thought was we asked for input from a variety of folks here at The Weather Channel. And one of the producers, executive producers, actually, came up with the idea, well, how about if we went to the Roman and Greek way? BRYAN NORCROSS: And I really liked that because it set the names apart from the hurricanes. There couldn't be any confusion. You know, we're just getting this started. Let's be sure that the names are completely unrelated to hurricane names. And then in laying it out and going down the list, it's - some of the letters don't exist in Roman and Greek names... NEAL CONAN: The alphabet, yeah. BRYAN NORCROSS: ...that are familiar, right? NEAL CONAN: K, for example, yeah. BRYAN NORCROSS: And so we wanted something that was familiar and easy to remember and not some, you know, fancy Greek name with seven syllables. So it kind of got filled in and then honestly we had a little fun in a few spots. But the Gandolf - again, just to put a little story behind the name, that Gandolf is not "The Lord of the Rings" Gandalf for the peers out there. They know that Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" is spelled G-A-N-D-A-L-F. We spelled it with an O, which, it turns out, was the name of the character in a 19th century novel that Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" and Tolkien based it on. And Tolkien changed the letter in the name. But in any case, so technically speaking - and believe me, I've heard from a lot of folks that dissected this every which way. Technically speaking, Gandolf, in this case, comes from a 19th century novel. NEAL CONAN: We're talking with Bryan Norcross, the senior director of weather content at The Weather Channel, about the company's decision to start naming winter storms. Meteorologists, good idea? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. Steve is on the line with us from Fayetteville in Arkansas. STEVE: Hey. Thanks for taking my call. You know, we get a lot of different kinds of crazy weather in Fayetteville, and so it's really good to prepare people for what is certainly coming. And respectfully, I think it sounds kind of like a marketing ploy to generate interest in The Weather Channel. Please, change my mind and tell me, are you going to issue your own warnings with this kind - with the name on it? Or is this name going to conflict with the National Weather Service warnings? What is The Weather Channel going to do to help prepare our citizens in Arkansas for this kind of weather? BRYAN NORCROSS: Very good question, Steve. Thanks very much. Let me be absolutely clear. This doesn't in any way change the forecasts that we make at The Weather Channel or the watches and warnings from the National Weather Service that we communicate. All of that will be exactly the same. The only thing that will change with this is the label that we put on the storm. So that instead of calling it the winter storm, the Christmastime winter storm, it might be Winter Storm Caesar or some other name. BRYAN NORCROSS: So there is no difference at all in how we warn and how we advice people. All of the weather advisories and everything else that comes out from the National Weather Service will still be part of it. And let me also add that, you know, we would love to work with the National Weather Service if they think the idea has merit, and they would like to make it part of their operation. We'd be very happy for that. The fact is that the weather service being part of the government is very deliberate about things. And you know, it has experimental periods and other kinds of processes that they follow. So this we hope they'll look at and say, we think this might be a good part of the future plans for the weather service, and we would be more than happy to work with them on that. NEAL CONAN: We're talking about the decision to name winter storms. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And Kevin's on the line with us from Columbus, Indiana. KEVIN: Good afternoon. NEAL CONAN: Go ahead, please. KEVIN: Hello. I work in emergency response coordination, emergency management. And I'd like to point out that having the names for the storms, like the hurricanes, they're definitely a big help to us to help us keep track of the storms, especially when they occur one right after another in rapid succession, makes it easier to get the information to the people that need to have it and to organize a response with those issues. BRYAN NORCROSS: That's a really interesting point, you know. And I - as you all may know, I've lived with hurricanes for literally decades. And being able to communicate clearly one storm to the next when they come close - in close proximity, or when one is going place and another is going another place at the same time, keeping those warnings and advisories and forecasts straight can be dicey. BRYAN NORCROSS: And there's actually experience with exactly what you talked about. It turns out a TV station in Connecticut named - has been naming winter storms for some time for their area and for their viewers. And local emergency management (unintelligible) some big storms has picked up those names and found that to be useful in their communications. BRYAN NORCROSS: So I suspect that some of that will, you know, seep into use as we do this. I don't expect that everybody's going to pick up on The Weather Channel names and use them. Every media outlet has to do what they think is right for their viewers or readers or listeners, just like every emergency manager has to communicate in the best way that they think serves the people that they're serving. But you know, we're hopeful that - as this example points out, that it can aid in communications to raise awareness among people that there is threat, and it is something to pay attention to and make it easier to pay attention to. NEAL CONAN: Kevin, thanks very much. And let's see if we go next to - this is Mike, and Mike's on the line with us from Columbia, South Carolina. MIKE: Hey, thanks for having me. I agree with an earlier caller who was talking about just the premise of entertainment and The Weather Channel's purpose. I'm a pilot. I grew up in the '90s using The Weather Channel exclusively when I was learning to fly back when it was really just teletype, and followed it, you know, most of life and in my professional career. And I just - I've seen the change since I believe it was NBCUniversal took over. And I believe it's sort of reminiscent of The Movie Network, where, you know, it's just a media move to entertain rather than inform. You know, your guest said that the goal would be so the storms' names would allow you to anticipate at least what The Weather Channel will do. Well, the problem is, like I said, The Weather Channel is entertainment. BRYAN NORCROSS: Yeah. I think that, you know, the caller's comment has some validity. The Weather Channel has, over the years, adopted more call it lifestyle kinds of programming. And I think you'll see - if you watch The Weather Channel now, you'll see a concerted effort to put more science into The Weather Channel programming and appeal directly to traditional Weather Channel viewers. And I spent a lot of time every day - work on this, as do many other folks here. We have more experts on the air than ever before. And this is the trend you're going to see in Weather Channel program. I mean... MIKE: Well, then you do - you definitely do have a favor for aviation as you can tell by the line-up of shows recently. But I do believe it leads to sort of a pre-emptive cancelation in the airline world where the flights are canceled just because the hype on TV. Even though we follow the meteorologists outside The Weather Channel for my profession, I do see a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. BRYAN NORCROSS: That's absolutely true. It's true in hurricanes as well as winter storms, that if the people get kind of agitated about it because the local meteorologists are talking about it, and it's especially bad if they're talking about it in a conflicting way, or national weather services - I don't mean the National Weather Service - but I mean national weather companies talk about it in conflicting ways, you can end up with confusion. That's - that is a significant problem and one of the reasons that we here at The Weather Channel and most media outlets only communicate watches and warnings from the National Weather Service. BRYAN NORCROSS: But in the United States the issue of a unified message to the public in significant weather events or emergencies in general is a tremendous problem, and it's, you know, it's rooted in our First Amendment and the way our media structure is set up and other factors to do with just the way our system works. But I don't at all deny that it is something that we talk about and we think about, and we try and contribute to solutions to the problem. But there are no easy solutions, as we saw in Hurricane Isaac. MIKE: Two final points on that. NEAL CONAN: Only one, Mike, we've got 10 seconds left. MIKE: OK. You need to be responsible, is the first point about it. And the second point is between that and hurricanes, Jim Cantore can't be everywhere in one year. NEAL CONAN: They will is the answer to the first one. And Bryan Norcross, thank you very much for your time today. BRYAN NORCROSS: All right. Thank you. NEAL CONAN: Bryan Norcross is senior director of weather content at The Weather Channel and joined us form their studios in Atlanta. Coming up tomorrow it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. We'll see you again on Monday. I'm Neal Conan in. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Hurricanes and tropical storms get names. Now, the Weather Channel plans to do the same for significant winter storms. So that next nor'easter may be dubbed Brutus, Nemo or Xerxes. Weather Channel meteorologist Bryan Norcross says the network hopes to raise public awareness of serious storms.

Hurrikane und tropische Stürme bekommen Namen. Jetzt plant der Weather Channel, dasselbe für bedeutende Winterstürme zu tun. Also könnte der nächste Nor'easter Brutus, Nemo oder Xerxes heißen. Der Meteorologe von Weather Channel, Bryan Norcross, sagt, dass der Sender hofft, das öffentliche Bewusstsein für schwere Stürme zu schärfen.

飓风和热带风暴都有名字。现在，天气频道计划也给冬季风暴起名。因此，下一场东北大风或风暴可能会被叫作布鲁特斯、尼莫或薛西斯。天气频道的气象学家布赖恩·诺克罗斯表示，电视台希望提高公众对严重风暴的意识。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Russia and Turkey struck a deal this week to create a nine-mile demilitarized zone in the Idlib region between Syrian government forces and rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime. The hope is to avert another huge humanitarian disaster in Syria. We turn now to special adviser to the United Nations, Jan Egeland. He's been working with all the parties to try and figure out a way forward. He joins us from Berlin on Skype. Mr. Egeland, thanks so much for being with us. JAN EGELAND: Thank you. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: You have been in touch with people on the ground there in Idlib. What do they say about what things are like there now? JAN EGELAND: Well, what we hear is a lot of relief, really, that this relentless countdown to all-embracing war, civilians may be averted. But, of course, people are still afraid because what is not off is this war on terror. There are a number of listed terror organizations in Idlib, formerly called Al-Nusra and other groups. And they will be hit with air raids. They will be moved out of this buffer zone that you just described. They will be fought. And hundreds of thousands of civilians can still end up in the crossfire. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: How do you establish and enforce a nine-mile demilitarized zone? JAN EGELAND: Well, the idea of Russia and Turkey is now that Nusra and the other extremist groups will either voluntarily go from this zone, or they will be forced out by other groups and that Turkey and Russia have agreed that there will be an enforcement of this. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The possibility of a battle in Idlib is figured to be probably the last battle of the Syrian civil war that's been going on for a number of years now. Does this agreement avoid that battle or merely postpone it? JAN EGELAND: Well, it must limit it. It's the so-called terrorists that will be fought. And therefore our job, which has one concern, the civilian population - half of the civilians there are already internally displaced - is to shield them against the bloodshed that will potentially now happen and the air raids that will happen. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: So you don't expect this to stop the fighting, just to divide it into sections? JAN EGELAND: I fear there could still be a lot of fighting with many, many thousands of men armed to the teeth with no option but to fight or die. It will also threaten the lifeline that 12,000 humanitarian colleagues - our collective lifeline is very fragile to 2 million people in non-government-controlled areas in the north. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Is the deal in effect now? Is there a deadline? JAN EGELAND: Well, these are decisive days because between now and mid-October, the buffer zone is supposed to be established. That, in a way, will hold back any ground offensive by the Syrian army and allied forces. Presumably, there will be fighting - these groups. Al-Nusra have said that they will not leave their positions. So there will be fighting now first in the buffer zone, possibly, and then later on in other parts of Idlib. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Jan Egeland is secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council and a special adviser to the U.N. Thanks so much for being with us, sir. JAN EGELAND: Thank you.

NPR's Scott Simon talks to Jan Egeland, senior adviser to the U.N., to understand the latest deal agreed to that would avert a looming military offensive in Syria's contested region of Idlib.

Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit Jan Egeland, dem leitenden Berater der Vereinten Nationen, über die jüngste Vereinbarung, die eine drohende Militäroffensive in der umkämpften syrischen Region Idlib abwenden soll.

美国国家公共电台记者斯科特·西蒙采访联合国高级顾问扬·埃格兰，了解最新达成的协议，该协议将避免在叙利亚有争议的伊德利卜地区发动军事进攻。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: There are thousands of unaccompanied minors in federally licensed shelters for migrants. And this week, the Trump administration said those shelters may be losing funding for education, outdoor play opportunities like soccer and legal aid. The Department of Health and Human Services says after a spike in border crossings last month, there is no more money to pay for anything that is not, quote, "directly necessary for the protection of life and safety." Child welfare advocates say services like recreation are, in fact, necessary for children's lives and safety. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Anya Kamenetz of NPR's education team joins us now with more. Hi, Anya. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Hi, Ari. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We've been talking about growing numbers of people crossing the border. What are the numbers? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: So U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported a spike in border crossings in May, and that included 11,500 unaccompanied minors. And the Department of Health and Human Services - the Office of Refugee Resettlement operates a network of shelters in 23 states. And at last count, more than 10,000 - in fact, almost 13,000 children who are mostly teenage boys, mostly from Central America, are being held until their cases are processed, usually for weeks. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And what are their conditions like in the meantime? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Well, there's lots of reports. You know, there's reports of overcrowding, issues accessing medical services. It's been reported that a total of six children have died in U.S. custody since last fall. So HHS requested emergency funding in May of almost $3 billion. They're saying they're running out of money. This is a crisis. It's an emergency. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: And then comes this latest announcement that we're - they're cutting these services - education, recreation and legal aid. And meanwhile, the shelters which are licensed are telling news outlets they don't know what to do because child welfare advocates argue that if the shelters stop offering these types of services, even if they're considered extras, they may violate their state licenses as well as potentially federal law. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Explain why education and outdoor play and recreation are considered so vital for child development and child welfare. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Well, so it's physical health. It's mental health. For children particularly, it's brain development. For adolescents, it's their brain and also social development. And then specifically for kids who are recovering from trauma and coping with ongoing toxic stress, researchers are just looking at why play is so important for them. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What's the connection there between trauma and play? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: So I checked in today with a developmental psychologist, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, as well as a doctor - a trauma specialist, Pamela Cantor. They both told me that studies are just starting to be done in this connection. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: They asked me to consider that, you know, almost without exception, these are young people in federal facilities who are separated from their families. They're in a strange place. They're dealing with stress and uncertainty every day. They fled poverty. They fled possibly violence in their home countries. And so they desperately need the semblance of a daily routine. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: And analogously, if you look at studies done in hospital settings with chronically ill children, when they have access to play, they do better. They heal faster. They have lower levels of stress. And similarly, after natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Katrina, there started to be interest in the therapeutic benefits of play access. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: A very simple thing that Dr. Cantor told me is that when your brain is being bombarded with stress hormones every day, you actually need to move your body even more than usual so you can get oxygen to your brain. And this oxygenation - it helps buffer potentially long-term damage. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Just in our last 30 seconds, what does the law say here? Could there be legal challenges? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Absolutely. A Supreme Court case settled in 1997 - was something called the Flores Agreement - is very specific. And it says minors in these facilities need access to school. They need access to outdoor recreation, indoor leisure. So that's what the law says, and child welfare advocates are saying that they will mount legal challenges if the denial of these services does go forward. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: NPR's Anya Kamenetz, thank you. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Thanks, Ari.

The Department of Health and Human Services says it can no longer fund education, recreation and legal services for migrant youth in federal custody. Experts say that's dangerous. Detained immigrant children enter a cafeteria in Karnes City, Texas. The Trump administration stopped using the center to hold parents and children in March 2019.

Das Ministerium für Gesundheit und Soziales sagt, es könne nicht länger Bildungs-, Erholungs- und Rechtsdienstleistungen für jugendliche Migranten in staatlicher Obhut finanzieren. Experten halten das für gefährlich. Inhaftierte Einwandererkinder betreten eine Cafeteria in Karnes City, Texas. Die Trump-Administration hat die Nutzung des Zentrums zur Unterbringung von Eltern und Kindern im März 2019 eingestellt.

美国卫生与公众服务部表示不能再为联邦监管下的移民青年提供教育、娱乐和法律服务。专家说这样很危险。被拘留的移民儿童进入一家位于得克萨斯州卡恩斯市的自助餐厅。特朗普政府于2019 年3月停止使用该中心容留父母和儿童。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: This spring, some Chinese Americans set out to correct the record of a part of American history. They attended the re-enactment of an iconic American moment. One hundred fifty years ago, workers completed the first transcontinental railroad. Workers laying tracks from the east approached workers laying tracks from California in the West, and they met in Utah in 1869. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: The reenactment attracted Chinese Americans because their ancestors largely built the western part of the railroad. That dangerous work was the start of their families' long connection with America. More than once over the years since, the descendants have recreated a photo of the moment the railroads met - but with one significant change. NPR's Emily Feng reports as we hear people with A Foot in Two Worlds - the U.S. and China. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Wai-Soo Koo, in her 70s, opens up a plastic bag in her hotel room. She pulls out a big blanket and carefully unfolds it on the bed. WAI-SOO KOO: Well, I bought this today... EMILY FENG, BYLINE: It's emblazoned with a famous photograph of the completion of the transcontinental railroad. In it, dozens of men stand on or around two locomotives, one facing east, the other west. In between them, the heads of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads shake hands. But there's one thing missing. WAI-SOO KOO: I don't see one Chinese face here - just white faces. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Koo's great-grandfather Wong Joh Ting (ph) and at least 10,000 other Chinese workers endured the high snow of the Sierra Nevada and the brutal sun of the Nevada desert to help build the railroad. Hundreds died, and they were underpaid simply for being Chinese. Their descendants want to highlight that history. WAI-SOO KOO: Hopefully, we can rectify this and let people know that there were many Chinese people who sacrificed. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Koo herself took a long road to the U.S. Her great-grandfather, the railroad ancestor, left behind his family in China, so Koo was born in Shanghai. When she later tried to come to the U.S.... WAI-SOO KOO: We had to wait five years to come because of the China Exclusionary Act (ph). So I know that act very well - of discrimination. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: She's talking about the 1882 Exclusion Act. The act stopped Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. and forced those already here, many of them railroad workers, to return to China. Restrictions in Chinese immigration were not completely ended until 1965. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: I met Koo in Utah. She and hundreds of other descendants are here to redo that photograph at the completion of the transcontinental railroad, the one with all the white faces. The opportunity to do it came at the Golden Spike festival to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the transcontinental railroad. I wandered the hotel where descendants of Chinese railroad workers shared their stories in empty ballrooms and alcoves. They spoke of their ancestors' experience and of their own. RAYMOND CHONG: Chinese were the perpetual foreigner, and we still are the perpetual foreigner. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Raymond Chong, now 63, still doesn't feel at home. He grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s and '60s during the Cold War, when Chinese people were viewed with suspicion. With the U.S. and China now in a trade war, he's worried... RAYMOND CHONG: That we are being used as a false pretense, a scapegoat, to represent China. And we don't. We're true Americans. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: I find Russell Low in a quiet corner of the hotel lobby, where he shows me pictures of his Chinese ancestors. RUSSELL LOW: I think that's one of the things that makes us uniquely American. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Low's great-grandmother, Ah Ying, married a rail worker after escaping an abusive household and Chinese gangs. Her love story was documented in San Francisco papers at the time. RUSSELL LOW: We're all descendants of some brave person, like Ah Ying, who decided that, no, I'm going to do this. I'm going to come to America. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Anybody else have an empty seat next to you? EMILY FENG, BYLINE: I hopped on a bus with these descendants, who came from all over the country. Their Cantonese dialects mixed with English spoken in New York and Boston accents. We're heading to Utah's Promontory Summit, where a gold railroad spike was driven into complete the transcontinental in 1869. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: There's just one long road that everyone is taking to get in that's lined with American flags. And they've set up all these tents for this event. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: The summit is a windy grassland ringed by snowy mountains. Normally, there's nothing but scrub in between them. But Golden Spike festival organizers managed to bring in an Irish band and pull in two restored antique trains, just like the ones in 1869. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Mid-afternoon, hundreds of descendants gather in front of the restored trains. Many are dressed as their ancestors would have been - in straw hats, cloth tunics or flashier silks. One of them, Richard Kwan (ph), sits down in the sun. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: How does it feel wearing the costume and that - you've got this long braid, as well. RICHARD KWAN: (Laughter) It's very, very hot in here. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: The heaving mass of bodies squeeze into the frame, the same spot where their ancestors should have stood 150 years ago. There's some good-natured pushing. CORKY LEE: Pull in further. Make believe this is the New York City subway. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: The photographer, Corky Lee, yells cheese, and cameras click away. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: And just like that, there's a new version of the iconic Golden Spike photograph, this time filled with beaming Chinese American faces. EMILY FENG, BYLINE: Emily Feng, NPR News, Promontory Summit.

Chinese immigrants helped build America's first transcontinental railroad in the 1860s, but their contribution has been largely forgotten. A group of their descendants is trying to change that.

Chinesische Einwanderer halfen in den 1860er Jahren beim Bau der ersten transkontinentalen Eisenbahnlinie Amerikas, aber ihr Beitrag wurde weitgehend vergessen. Eine Gruppe ihrer Nachkommen versucht das zu ändern.

19世纪60年代，中国移民帮助修建了美国第一条横贯大陆的铁路，但他们的贡献在很大程度上被遗忘了。他们的后代正试图改变这一现状。

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: And now we return to our main story, the government shutdown. Bernie Sanders is the independent senator from Vermont, and he joins us now. Good morning, sir. BERNIE SANDERS: Good morning. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: You want Republicans to make a deal on DACA, people who are brought to this country illegally as children. But how much of a deal are you willing to make on legal immigration? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform that has to include 800,000 DREAMers, young people who are brought into this country as infants, but it has to go beyond that. But what this shutdown is about is most certainly not just the DREAMers. We are into almost four months of the fiscal year, and Republicans have not yet given us a budget, an annual budget. And this is not the way you run a $4 trillion entity which is called the United States government. Just the other day, the United States Armed Forces, the Pentagon, the secretary of defense said it is impossible for him to do his job. It is responsible. It is wasteful. It is dangerous for the Pentagon if they don't have an... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Sure. We... BERNIE SANDERS: ...Annual budget. We have got to give it to them. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Right. We can run through who is to blame for this, but I'd rather talk about what the solution is. The sticking points are on immigration. The president wants to change the system. Are you willing to scrap, for example, the visa lottery where 50,000 visas are given out to individuals from countries who aren't represented... BERNIE SANDERS: I think we have to look at it in a comprehensive way. But the point right now is just the other day, just the other night, Mitch McConnell understood that he needed 60 votes to continue the - to pass a continuing resolution. And yet he went forward knowing he did not have the 60 votes. So it is time for the Republicans - let's be clear. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They've got to sit down and negotiate and understand they can't get everything they want... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Right. But what are you asking for? What are you asking for, exactly? BERNIE SANDERS: What we're asking for is three things. We are asking for an annual budget which will provide equally for defense and nondefense spending. We are asking that months and months after these terrible disasters impacted Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - that we deal with disaster relief. And we are asking what the American people want. Recent poll had 87 percent of the American people saying that DREAMers should receive, retain their legal status that Trump took away from them. And most of those folks think there should be a path toward citizenship. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: So what... BERNIE SANDERS: That is exactly what we want. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Right. So what are you willing to give for that? I mean, this is a negotiation... BERNIE SANDERS: Oh, my goodness. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: I mean, and the president... BERNIE SANDERS: Of course, this is a negotiation. What we're willing to give is a lot more money - I am talking not only for myself - but a lot more money for border security, frankly, than I think is necessary. Chuck Schumer, you may have seen the other day, said he's willing to talk about a wall. I think a wall is an absurd idea. But Schumer has thrown that on the table, something that Trump has been talking about from day one throughout his entire campaign. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: So you're willing... BERNIE SANDERS: So there will have... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: ...To see a wall? BERNIE SANDERS: I am willing to spend more money on border security than I am comfortable with. But everything has to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. What I believe that McConnell has got to do right now is to give us three or four days. Let's - leadership sit down and work it out, and I think we could do it. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: However, there is a vote that has been called for just after midnight tonight presumably to push the Democrats to some kind of agreement. How do you think that's going to play out? We have about 30 seconds left. BERNIE SANDERS: I think it will fail because it's continuing to kick the can down the road. And, by the way, let me give you one example of how absurd these ongoing continuing resolutions are. In my state of Vermont, 1 out of 4 people get their primary health care - 1 out of 4 people get their primary health care through community health centers. Twenty-seven million Americans get their care through community health centers. That has not even been re-authorized. We're in the process of seeing the collapse of community health centers all over this country. That has to be dealt with. You got 30,000 vacancies at the Veterans Administration. That has got to be dealt with. Ten thousand people died last year... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Bernie Sanders is the independent senator from Vermont. I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Thank you, sir. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you.

NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont about the ongoing government shutdown.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro von NPR spricht mit dem unabhängigen Senator Bernie Sanders aus Vermont über den anhaltenden Regierungsstillstand.

NPR的露露·加西亚-纳瓦罗与佛蒙特州独立参议员伯尼桑德斯就正在进行的政府停摆进行了会谈。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: And now the opinion page. The big winners at last night's Emmy Awards included Showtime's drama "Homeland," the HBO movie "Game Change," and, if you follow the Emmys in recent years, a very familiar title. NEAL CONAN, HOST: MICHAEL J. FOX: And the Emmy goes to "Modern Family." NEAL CONAN, HOST: Michael J. Fox presenting the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series to ABC's "Modern Family," the third consecutive year that show's won that award. It also picked up three others. The results surprise few but puzzle Albert Ching. In a recent op-ed entitled "The Emmys Need To Get Over Modern Family," he wrote, the Emmys have a puzzling attitude towards comedy. He points to the dominance of "Modern Family" is proof the Emmys play it too safe and reward the same things over and over again. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you watched the Emmys, who do you think got unfairly overlooked? Give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Albert Ching is a reporter with the site Newsarama. His op-ed, "The Emmys Need To Get Over Modern Family," ran in The Atlantic last week and joins us now by smartphone from Los Angeles. Nice to have you with us today. ALBERT CHING: Hello, Neal. Nice to be here. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what's wrong with "Modern Family"? ALBERT CHING: Well, you know, it's not so much what's wrong with "Modern Family." It's more what's right with so many other comedies that are on television right now that are not only getting overlooked but plain, old dominated by "Modern Family" now winning best comedy three years in a row and kind of, sort of monopolizing almost every category it was nominated in to the extent where, I think, for best supporting actor in a comedy series, four of the six picks were all from "Modern Family." NEAL CONAN, HOST: For those unfamiliar with the program, can you capsulize it for us? ALBERT CHING: Sure. Absolutely. It's about a modern family, believe it or not, and the patriarch, played by Ed O'Neill, who people probably know from "Married with Children," and he has a much younger wife played by Sofia Vergara, and they have a child. And then he has two adult children who have families of their own: a daughter played by Julie Bowen, who won yesterday for best supporting actress in a comedy series, and her husband and their three children, and then his son played by Jesse Tyler Fergusson and his husband played by Eric Stonestreet, who won outstanding supporting actor in comedy series, a gay couple, and their adopted daughter. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So extended family, three families in all. A show you say is presented without the concept of irony. ALBERT CHING: Yes. You know, definitely, it's a more conventional sitcom than many other shows that are on right now that are getting acclaim and a lot of buzz. And I think that has a lot to do with why it's so popular. It's definitely a show that anyone can watch. You know, other than some of the family dynamics obviously, it's a show that could've been on, you know, 10, 20, 30 years ago. It's a sitcom about a family and has very universal, relatable messages, which is admirable but not always necessarily translating to funny. ALBERT CHING: And there are a lot of other shows right now - I talk about "Louie," "Community," in my Atlantic article - that, you know, kind of challenge dynamics more, have a little bit more of an unconventional approach and also manage to be quite funny. And themes that, you know, if "Modern Family" was nominated for one or two Emmys or three, you know, I don't think anyone would blink an eye over the fact that it gets nominated for so many and win so many and not just Emmys but Writers Guild, SAG Awards, et cetera. That kind of raises the eyebrows a bit. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You say the damning thing about the show is that it's named as the favorite by both of our presidential candidates. ALBERT CHING: Yes, absolutely. And, you know, I think it's pretty fair to say that that's the type of softball question that is designed to appeal to as wide as a base as possible, which I think says a lot about "Modern Family." It's designed to appeal to as wide as a base as possible. I suppose the Romney and Obama campaigns feel that it's the right show to link up their public image with, then I think that says that it's not necessarily the most daring or innovative voice on television right now. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And interesting that you say they're playing it safe with comedies but not so much on the dramas. ALBERT CHING: Yeah. You know, the drama categories, I think, as a whole has been better for a long time than the comedy categories. You know, there was a notable exception that the show, "The Wire," which a lot of critics and viewers, you know, kind of view as either one of or the best television series of all time actually only got nominees for two awards in its entire existence and lost both of them. But in recent years, "Breaking Bad" has been recognized a lot. Bryan Cranston won three years in a row. He didn't win last night, but he won three years in a row. Aaron Paul won last night for the second time for best supporting actor. "Mad Men" won several years in a row. It lost last year, and last year was the big night for "Homeland." And I think if you look at any... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Last night. ALBERT CHING: Last night, yes, excuse me. If you look at any of the nominees for best drama, I think they're all sort of ones that you would, you know, generally include in the conversation of, OK, well, these are the best drama shows on TV. You might not agree with the individual pick. But when you look at the comedy series nominees, it's much more mixed tag. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And why is it then that they would be - "Homeland," an edgy drama, would be voted - sweep the awards for drama... ALBERT CHING: Yeah. NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...and aren't these the same people who are voting for these? ALBERT CHING: Yeah. You know, it's hard to say exactly the whims of award show voters. You know, that's a mindset that I can't personally claim any insight to, nor maybe would I want to. It's definitely a kind of a befuddling situation, and it's - maybe just comedy is more subjective in general than drama. I suppose that could be part of it and just maybe more of a mixed field in terms of styles of comedy and approaches. That could be a reason, but that is a total guess. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Albert Ching, a reporter for Newsarama, about the Emmys last night. If you think you have one of your favorites that was unfairly overlooked, give us a call. 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. And we'll start off with Dan. Dan's on the line with us from Salt Lake City. NEAL CONAN, HOST: DAN #1: Well, thank you. I'm a huge fan of the show. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: #1: I've - well, I personally thought last night that "Sherlock" was overlooked. I think that show has - well, just - I have two college age daughters, and they watch the series. I've always been a big fan of it. And it's so good that it took young college girls and made them huge fans of the show. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's the British update of Sherlock Holmes, not to be confused with "Elementary," the American update of Sherlock Holmes, which I think debuts this week. NEAL CONAN, HOST: #1: Yeah. Well, I have a hard time believing they're going to do a better job. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I just think those two - the Watson character is back to the original. He's a brave medical doctor who've seen a lot of action, and he's not a idiot. And it's such a fabulous - and the plot twists in the one they - the one that was nominated, "Scandal," I think it was called, "Belgravia," the plots or twists, you couldn't see it coming. I can guarantee you that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Albert Ching, are you a fan of BBC's "Sherlock"? ALBERT CHING: Yes. It's a great show, and it was refreshing to see it get a few nominations, but not entirely surprising that it didn't win. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Dan, thanks very much for the call. NEAL CONAN, HOST: #1: Hey, I appreciate it. (Unintelligible)... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Are foreign-made TV shows at a disadvantage, unlike at the Oscars where they seemed to win all the time? ALBERT CHING: Yeah. You know, it definitely seems that way. And I think it's only in recent years that they've been sort of creeping into the nominee list more and more. And, you know, part of that is just plain practicality, that more of these shows are available to be watched in America and broadcast on American networks like PBS and BCC America than they were before. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go to... ALBERT CHING: So it's probably something that will change in time. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Another Dan is on the line with us from Seymour, Connecticut. NEAL CONAN, HOST: DAN #2: How are you guys doing? NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK. NEAL CONAN, HOST: #2: Just - it didn't go, you know, under the radar that Amy Poehler again (unintelligible) her bit with Louis-Dreyfus. But I mean, she writes, she produces, she stars in "Parks and Rec," which I think is just - it's a great commentary on American political life, and they do it tactfully. They don't do it with condemnation. And I think that she just kind of gets overlooked too often. But my other (unintelligible) tossing aside of "Community," which if you don't know much about, it's absolutely heralded by critics, but it doesn't (unintelligible) the same wide appeal. And it's got this beautiful characters, difficult characters to work with, I mean one with Asperger's. And I mean, they somehow have made Chevy Chase relatable and somewhat adorable. And - but I mean, they're incredible characters, incredible character arcs. They just kind of get swept under the rug. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much. I appreciate it, Dan. You had cited, Albert Ching, "Community" as one of those you thought got overlooked. ALBERT CHING: Yeah. "Community" is a brilliant show. It's managed to, you know, it actually - it sort of does touch on some of the conventional sitcom tropes in the same way that "Modern Family" does, but in a very different way, I should say. It has a very like innovative way of sort of subverting them and looking at them, but it also manages to be heartwarming at times when it needs to be, and it's also absolutely hilarious. It's very intricately written. And they do a lot of fun, experimental episodes that you may have heard about and - but then also may just do a plain, straight-up episode of people, you know, wacky misfits at a community college that's just as good, just as satisfying. So I think it's a real special show. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Heartwarming when it needs to be. That's usually about 26 minutes after the program starts, the aww moment, to be followed by another gag. ALBERT CHING: Yeah, but in "Community" it's done it in a much more elegant manner and a much more surprising manner. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go to Keith. Keith with us - another caller from Salt Lake City. KEITH: Yes, hi. I actually am a comedian and also a TV comedy writer, and I have to disagree with Mister Ching in this regard, even though I agree that all the shows he has mentioned are really excellent. But I do think it's harder to write a slice-of-life comedy than it is to have either a reference-heavy comedy show or a show that relies on fringe characters. I think those are automatically interesting for their novelty and therefore it's easy to generate comedy moments. And it's also, I think, there's sort of a giddy factor when people see characters doing something that they haven't seen before. I think they invest comedy excellence into that that may or may not exist. KEITH: And I think that this is really a battle between the alt(ph) generation and the classic comedy generation. I produce shows as well, and I use alt comedians even though I'm more of a classic comedian myself because I'm not dismissive generationally. But I think this is a bit of a power play going on between the, you know, the - the "Family Ties" raised generation and the generation that immediately proceeded it. I have to take issue with anyone who says that "Modern Family" isn't doing something really extraordinary, because I think they are. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Albert Ching. ALBERT CHING: Well, I would say that a lot of the comedies I mentioned, if not all of them, are slice-of-life comedies, albeit it in a different fashion than "Modern Family." Certainly the show "Louie" on FX, which is brilliant, is one of the most realistic things I've seen on TV in terms of, you know, his portrayal and a lot of situations are explored. And you know, "Community" does have a lot of references, yes, but the heart of it the characters and their relationships. And if there was just references, then I don't think it would be nearly as satisfying, nor as heralded as it has been. KEITH: Well, let me just say before I go away that "Louie" is my favorite show on TV. So I didn't mean to be dismissive of "Louie," but I do think that it's not the case that shows like "Community" are - I don't think they're taking the hard route. I think they're taking the easy, we're-different-than-the-old-people route, and that's - there are certainly validity to that, but I don't think - there's a sort of a meta-reality to "Community," you know, the post-ironic comedy movement, that doesn't seem capable of just having a moment. To me, "Community" is like the Burt Reynolds of sitcoms, you know, just constantly winking at the camera. KEITH: And we all know what happened to Burt Reynolds. You know, he's got his place in movie history, but it's not one that's ever going to be considered timeless. I mean, there's a reason that "Seinfeld" is considered timeless, and it's not because of yada-yada-yada. It's not because of, you know, not that there's anything wrong with it. It's because slice of life is the hardest thing to do. And they did it beautifully, and it just so happened that coincidentally he was a comedian. But look at the amount of time you spend time thinking about "Louie" as comedian versus the amount of time you spent thinking about "Seinfeld" as comedian; you'll see - that's the difference in the generations. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Keith, you overlooked "Boogie Nights." But anyway, thanks very much. KEITH: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thank you very much for the call. We're talking with Albert Ching about last night's Emmy Awards. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And here's an email from Scott in Jamestown, New York: Jon Stewart took to the task about the Emmys being predictable in his acceptance speech, and he was cut off. Have to admire the guy that will bite the hand that just awarded him. Was he cut off or did their bleeper just run out of juice? ALBERT CHING: Yeah. I know he was bleeped at least a couple of times, I believe. I don't know exactly what - if he was cut off, or if it was the bleeps, or if he was just going on too long in general. I'm just not sure what the case was there. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Is there a relationship between the shows that are critically acclaimed - and as you mentioned, "The Wire," hard to find a show that critics love more than that - and the Emmy Awards that it collects? ALBERT CHING: You know, I think it's often a type of show that it can be critically acclaimed and also win awards. But then on the other hand, shows that maybe delve more into some of the fringe genres, like sci-fi, you know, I mean when "Battlestar Galactica" was on TV, especially for its first couple seasons, it was as acclaimed as almost everything else on TV, same with "Buffy The Vampire Slayer." Those were huge critical successes and almost completely unrecognized by the Emmy Awards. And I think it just depends on the type of show and sort of a lot of it is kind of the mainstream appeal. I can't necessarily explain why since theoretically that wouldn't have to have much to do with an award based on qualitative merits, but that does seemed to be the case. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get one, last caller in. Tara(ph) is with us. Tara's in Peoria. TARA: Hi. I was really disappointed to see that "Girls" on HBO didn't win - well, they only thing they did win was outstanding casting for a comedy series, whereas Lena Durham does everything for that show and didn't get any recognition. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Interesting also that, as you pointed out in your piece, it's the - in the drama category, the networks all but got shot out. In the comedy category the networks ruled. ALBERT CHING: Yeah, it is interesting. And, you know, I think, again, it probably has to do with comedies being more easily appealing on network TV and that the ones that are on network TV are usually a little bit more straightforward. And also while cable channels, especially premium channels, definitely deal more with drama series, they don't really have quite as many, I think. I mean, I can't say that as a 100 percent perfect statistic, but I just think that there are more dramas on cable than premium cable than there are comedies. There's just more to choose from. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I guess the exception to the rule would be "Veep," and Julia Louis-Dreyfus did win for that last night. ALBERT CHING: She did. And, you know, I think that also can point to the Emmys being the sort of safe in the comedy categories. You know, nothing against the show "Veep," but it definitely show that I don't necessarily sense a lot of enthusiasm for and, you know, it's hard to get someone more reliable in terms of television awards than Julia Louis-Dreyfus. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tara, thanks very much for the phone call. Appreciate it. TARA: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Albert Ching, thank you for your time today. ALBERT CHING: Thank you so much. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Albert Ching, a reporter with the website Newsarama, joined us by smartphone from Los Angeles. You can find a link to his piece on our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION.

The big winners at the 2012 Emmy Awards included Homeland and the ABC comedy, Modern Family. Albert Ching points to the dominance of Modern Family at the Emmys as proof that the award show plays it too safe when it comes to comedy by repeatedly rewarding the same programs. Read Albert Ching's Piece For The Atlantic, 'The Emmys Need To Get Over Modern Family'

Zu den großen Gewinnern der Emmy-Verleihung 2012 gehörten "Homeland" und die ABC-Comedy "Modern Family". Albert Ching verweist auf die Dominanz von Modern Family bei den Emmys als Beweis dafür, dass die Preisverleihung im Bereich Comedy zu sehr auf Nummer sicher geht und immer wieder dieselben Programme auszeichnet. Lesen Sie Albert Chings Beitrag für The Atlantic: "Die Emmys müssen über Modern Family hinwegkommen".

2012年艾美奖的大赢家包括《国土安全》和ABC的喜剧片《摩登家庭》。阿尔伯特·程指出，《摩登家庭》在艾美奖上的主导地位证明，在喜剧方面，颁奖礼过于保守，反复嘉奖同样的节目。阿尔伯特·程发表在大西洋杂志上的文章，”艾美奖需要跳出摩登家庭的框架“

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Up next, I know you've all been waiting for it. It's time again for our SCIENCE FRIDAY Book Club. This month's pick - what are we reading this month? You did do your homework and read along with us, right? It's "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" by Edwin Abbott. It was - it's a classic. It was written in 1884, and, as I say, I hope you had time to read it. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Our book club regulars - Flora Lichtman, our multimedia editor, Annette Heist, SCIENCE FRIDAY senior producer - have gathered together here in the studio. I brought in some cheesecake for the club today. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: That we'll eat off-mic. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's talk about "Flatland." Now why did we pick that book this week, Annette? ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Our listeners chose this book. We gave them a choice of four books: "2001: Space Odyssey," "The Andromeda Strain," "Brave New World," and "Flatland." And "Flatland" won. Overwhelming selection by SCIENCE FRIDAY fans. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And if you'd like to talk about it, we welcome you to join us. Our number is 1-800-989-8255. Did you like the book? What did you think about it? You know, talk to us. We're going to schmooze about it a little bit here. You can also tweet us @scifri, @S-C-I-F-R-I. And I'll start out the conversation by saying I was disappointed in the book. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Ooh. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Ooh. IRA FLATOW, HOST: I thought it was a little dated, you know? And I thought it sort of pounded over my head the same theory of society, over and over and over, again, too many times. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Well, it was old. But what do you mean dated? IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, I just think that if it were rewritten today, it would be edited better. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Ouch. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: (unintelligible) just a little... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Clunky. Right. Yeah. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You don't agree, I take it. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. Well, I mean, I feel like I'm in the minority here, but I really liked it. I thought it was sort of comforting, because, to me, this book was about butting up against the limits of your own imagination. You have the square living in two dimensions, and a guy from three dimensions, the sphere, tries to bring - explain what it would be like to live in three dimensions. And it's almost impossible, and I feel like this is true all the time. It's really hard - for me, anyway - to imagine a world that's very different from our own. And so in that sense - I don't know - I liked it. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yeah. I think the message is timeless, but I do think the language was a little cumbersome. And I warmed up to the book. I read it about 10 years ago. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: I remembered liking it. I didn't really like it for the first, I'm going to say, maybe 30 pages. And then as soon as things get exciting, when they visit the Spaceland and Lineland in our own dimension when we go there. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow, here with Flora Lichtman and Annette Heist. We're talking about "Flatland." It's our Book of the Week. It's Book of the Month Club. And, you know, it was written a long time ago, relatively speaking... ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Right, right. IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...so sort of around Dickens, that sort of era? ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yes, in Victorian England. And this is - I'm horrible at metaphor, so I was glad that you get hit over the head with the metaphors, over and over again, in "Flatland." And it is a satire of life in Victorian England, where women are the very bottom rung of the ladder. In this book, they're straight lines... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: One-dimensional. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: ...one-dimensional, straight lines who, if they come at you the wrong way, they can hurt you, though. IRA FLATOW, HOST: They're like needles. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yes. IRA FLATOW, HOST: They get pretty - if you hit them on - they're pointy. So they have to announce themselves all the time, right? ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yes, with peace-cries. IRA FLATOW, HOST: We don't know what a peace-cry sounds like, but we can imagine. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: We can imagine. It's - well, I don't know. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You fill in the blank. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Yeah. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It seems to work... IRA FLATOW, HOST: But don't you think - I mean, we know it's a satire or it's a commentary on life. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Right. IRA FLATOW, HOST: But I just thought that was too heavy-handed with the women. I mean, the way they were insulting the women, I thought, after a while it didn't sound much like a satire, but that he really felt that way about the women, you know? ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Right. And I think it was perceived that way when it came out. Our guest later, Ian Stewart, will talk a little bit more about that. At first, Abbott was criticized for the way that he portrayed women in the book. But he came back later and said, no, no, no. I don't really feel that way. It's a satire, and you guys missed it. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Michael(ph) in Beltsville, Maryland. Hi, Michael. MICHAEL: Hello. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi there. MICHAEL: Hi. I'm a mathematics tutor. I travel, and I listen to the podcast. I rarely listen live. And I was listening to last week's podcast and heard next week we're going to be talking about "Flatland." I immediately turned off the podcast and turned on the live show. It happened to be just the right time. I'm so excited because I love "Flatland." And part of it is about the social - the criticism of the social structure that Abbott was making, beyond the math - which I love the math. MICHAEL: But I also wanted - I don't know if you're going to get to this, but there have been a number of books that have been written that are follow-ups to "Flatland," and I've only read one of them, and it was recently. It's called "Sphereland" by Rudy Rucker, and it was absolutely fantastic. I don't know if you're familiar with Rudy Rucker. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: There have also been movies made about "Flatland" as well. MICHAEL: Pardon? IRA FLATOW, HOST: There are movies made about "Flatland" as well. MICHAEL: Oh, yeah. I own them. I own them. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, you really did love this book, I can see. MICHAEL: Oh, I - it - I give it as presents. I give those DVDs of the movies as presents. It's one of my all, you know, the math is - because I'm a math tutor and a - well, I probably read it about 45 years ago, and - the first time I read it. And the math, I think, when I'm telling students about, you know, what one dimension is and what two dimension is, what three dimensions are and then I say - I lead into well, what would four dimensions be? And they just look at me a little startled when I breach that subject and I say, you know, pull out the book "Flatland." And I said, this is what you have to read so you can get a glimpse of what we're trying to accomplish when we're trying to think about a fourth dimension. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, Michael, stay tuned because we're going to bring on Ian Stewart, who's an expert in "Flatland," on our next segment after the break. So stay with us. We'll be right back with Annette Heist and Flora Lichtman and our book club reading "Flatland." Get at your copy during the break, and we'll talk about it. Stay with us. I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. We're talking, this hour, about "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" written by Edwin Abbott. It's our SCIENCE FRIDAY book club discussing it. Our number: 1-800-989-8255 if you've read Flatland and you'd like to talk about it. I'm going to bring on a "Flatland" expert, Ian Stewart. He's emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Warrick in England. He's author of the book "Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So" and "The Annotated Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions." Thanks for being with us Dr. Stewart. IRA FLATOW, HOST: DR. IAN STEWART: It's a pleasure. Thanks for having me on the show. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Tell us how women are treated in there, because we're sitting and chatting about it, and that's - the one thing we've all picked out immediately is the harsh treatment women get. STEWART: Yeah, Edwin Abbott, he had a daughter who was actually very, very bright, and he was a schoolmaster. He was the headmaster of City of London School, which was quite a - it was a school for the well-off middle classes, basically. And in those days, women really - the education of women in Victorian times was aimed at things like sewing and maybe history or might just be something that, you know, they were felt to be capable of. But I mean, the idea that a woman could be an engineer, for example, was just something that the Victorians would've considered completely ludicrous. STEWART: But Abbott realized that his daughter was actually very, very bright, and he felt that she was not going to get the education that she deserved. So as well as writing books and things, satirizing this state of affairs, he engaged private tutors, and he made sure that his daughter had the sort of education that he felt she deserved, rather than the sort of education that his society was willing to give her. So he, you know, he took action as well as just writing. IRA FLATOW, HOST: But he - Flora? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Well, you were saying that you thought it was too much, and it's funny because when I read it, I didn't feel that way. And maybe we have a difference of opinion because we, you know, I'm a woman, and so, for me, I felt sort of like, oh, I have a friend here in this author, who, you know, who really is blasting this point home. STEWART: Yeah, I think... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: I think - go ahead, Dr. Stewart. STEWART: Sorry. Yeah. I think that's right, but I think the audience at the time was rather polarized, because some people got this. Some people realized that this man is - he's writing satire. He doesn't actually believe this himself. In fact, he believes the exact opposite of this. Quite a lot of people took it rather at face value and felt that because he was making this point, over and over and over again, during the course of the book in various ways, that actually this - he was saying just how things should be. STEWART: And he went to some lengths in the second edition, which is published a year later in 1885. In the presses, he added a new section saying, in fairly gentle terms, basically, pointing out that he was acting in this fictional setup, that he was acting as a historian of the events that has happened in Flatland. And a historian's job is to report events. It is not to advance his own opinions. So in a gentle way, he was saying, come on, guys, haven't you noticed? You know, this is satire, I don't mean this. STEWART: I think people who knew Abbott would have realized, because they knew what his attitude - I mean, in general terms, he was fairly enlightened socially. But the people who didn't know and just picked up the book and started reading it, you can imagine somebody reading and thinking, what's this man doing? I mean why are the women so completely - I mean, they're totally brainless is the point. They're not just one dimensional. They really are - as far as the story goes, they are completely inferior to the men folk. STEWART: And for the men folk, it's a question of how many sides do you have. If you're a square, you're higher up the rank than a triangle. A pentagon is better than a square. A six-sided figure is even better. And the most perfect beings, which are the priesthood, are circles. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: But he does give the women some qualities, being - having feelings, being merciful and more loving than the men. I think that comes in at the end when he's talking to the seer. STEWART: That's right. And, OK, now - again, you can read that two ways because you can say, well, women are not great at intellectual activity, but they're fantastic at emotional things. He wasn't really quite trying to say that, but this was the prevailing view in Victorian times. And so he set up Flatland so that it reflected the state of affairs but - I think, particularly since he's putting it near the end when everything's coming to a climax. He's sort of finally revealing to you what the women of Flatland are really like, and you realize that actually there are more dimensions to them than the physical. STEWART: But I think, particularly since he's putting it near the end, when everything's coming to a climax, he's sort of finally revealing to you what the women of Flatland are really like. And you realize that, actually, there are more dimensions to them than the physical dimension, that is only one. And I think - you know, I mean, when I read it, I was about 16, and it took a little while to kind of figure out - I had to reread it several times to start to see the depth of the thing. But I - he's actually very, very sympathetic to the - to Flatland's women and to Flatland's lower classes. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hmm. Let's go to the phones, 1-800-989-8255. Wanda in Oakland. Hi, Wanda. Did you like the book? WANDA: Yes, very much. I read it in 1970 and - with my partner. And, actually, we saw the satire in it. And you have to remember when it was written. I think it's pretty obvious that he's trying to show the treatment of women. I think he's doing everything he can to show how everyone's treated, not just women, but the caste system in England and the monarch being a character. IRA FLATOW, HOST: How did it affect you? Did it make you stop and think about things? WANDA: Yes. We actually did a lot of thinking about - it was hard, I think, to perceive, from our point of view, a visualization of it. You know, you - when you start reading it, you go, well, those little, you know, pictures on the page, so to speak, dots and lines and things, but - at least in the one we read. But it was really difficult for the mind to perceive it, and you had to really stop and ask yourself: What do they mean? How can there be no other dimension? And it's thought-provoking, and I sincerely believe he was trying to show how women were being treated, by satire. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You know, the - that was an interesting part to me, how he actually went through and explained how to think about Flatland, that you could bring your nose down to the table... IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thanks, Wanda. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: ...and look at a shape and see that it would appear as a sort of straight line if you looked at, you know, a square in front of you, for example. I don't know. It was sort of a masterful translation, actually. IRA FLATOW, HOST: He did go out of his way for the details. He really did... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...talk about them. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Are his equations accurate, Dr. Stewart, when you look at the diagrams? Are they mathematically sound? STEWART: He - most of what he says is pretty sound. He's - what he's doing is he's taking something he was familiar with, which was Euclidian geometry. It was the kind of geometry that was taught to all Victorian schoolboys - not the girls, only to the boys. The girls weren't capable of studying geometry, of course. STEWART: And so he modeled his world on the flat plane of Euclid and the triangles and squares and circles and the kind of thing that you see in the geometry book. And most of what he says about them is actually pretty accurate. And when he starts doing his - the kind of scientific heart of the book is a dimensional analogy. STEWART: What he's really trying to explain to the Victorians - who were very interested, actually, in - the idea of the fourth dimension was floating around Victorian times, both in science and in various aspects of culture. And they were quite intrigued by this, in a way that we still are, as well, I think, the idea that space might have extra dimensions, or at least that a space with more dimensions might be possible. STEWART: And so Abbott is saying - really what he's saying to his readers is we three-dimensional creatures, trying to contemplate this mysterious fourth dimension, can learn a lot by putting ourselves in the place of a two-dimensional creature trying to comprehend the third dimension. We are familiar with that, but the two-dimensional creature would not be. What kind of arguments would they advance to prove it doesn't exist? What kind of ways of thinking could they come up with to convince themselves that maybe it's possible? STEWART: And if you have this analogy running, you start to see the bigger picture in the math. And that's very powerful, and it - this is a very good way of approaching the whole business of how many dimensions do things have, because mathematicians now are very happy to have as many dimensions as you'd like. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Whatever works. STEWART: It's no big deal anymore. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: I feel like a Flatlander trying to understand them. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Did he know Dickens? Were they contemporaries, or - I mean, Dickens wrote social commentary at the same time in some of his novels. Was that what's going on at that time, that period in history? STEWART: He knew George Eliot, the novelist who, despite her name, was actually - that was a pseudonym for a woman novelist. And there is documented evidence that he knew and moved in the same society as George Eliot. I don't think there is any - I've not come across contact with Dickens, as such. He was also a Shakespearian scholar and a theologian. And he wasn't actually terribly good at math. STEWART: He, you know, he approved of it, in some sense, but it wasn't his thing. And it - I mean, it's extraordinary that suddenly, this little book comes into being. You know, where did he get the idea from? Why did he want to write that book? What on Earth motivated the man? Actually, we don't know. There's no useful documentary evidence, or very, very little. You have to infer and guess. And it's all a little bit mysterious. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to David in Huntsville, Alabama. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi, David. DAVID: Hello. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi, there. Go ahead. DAVID: I just wanted to say that, you know, issues of satire aside or, you know, the stodginess of language, when I recently reread this, the climax, for me was in chapter 19 when the square has this transcendent realization that there are worlds beyond measure, that there are dimensions beyond measure. And, you know, basically, he is dissed by the sphere, who can't see this. The student has exceeded the master, and he has this intellectual, transcendent moment. And that's, you know, that's - makes the whole book for me. STEWART: I think that's a wonderful point, and I'm glad you brought that up, because, yeah, the sphere has been very, very carefully explaining to him that three dimensions are, in fact, possible. And - but then the sphere turns out not to have an imagination that goes beyond the familiar space that he lives in. And, of course, Abbott there is saying, you know, we're really like the sphere. You see, we can see that Mr. Square has a limited view of the world, but we haven't realized that we also have a limited view of our own world. And, as you say, the student has transcended the instructor, here. IRA FLATOW, HOST: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. We're talking about "Flatland." That's our Book Club of this month on SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. Flora? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, one - well, related to this, one little point that I loved in this book was how the kid, the hexagonal grandson, I think, kind of alludes to the third dimension. They're sitting in the study, and A Square is like, oh, rubbish. What are you talking about? And then - but, you know, we hear this all the time from scientists. I remember Sylvia Earle in an interview a few months ago said to me, you know, what makes a good scientist? You stay a kid. You never grow up. And, you know, it made me think, like, should all our string theorists be consulting with eight-year-olds? Just to expand your mind enough to think about these wild possibilities. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: But they get to the kid, by the end. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, that was depressing. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Keep that mind. STEWART: A dose of realism came into the story at that point. Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: How young do you think somebody - what age could you start to read "Flatland" and appreciate it, do you think? STEWART: I think that even at the age of 10 or 12, it might be that the mathematical side of it, the scientific side is actually - that's the easy part of the book, in a sense. That's the part that - it may be an area of human activity that only some of us feel comfortable with. But it's not - it doesn't require the sort of sophistication that social satire does. So the first time a young person reads the book, the social side of things might go - they might not be terribly aware of it, or they might feel it's just sort of part of the story to make things go. STEWART: But I think, certainly, you know, there is no reason why a 10 or 12-year-old shouldn't read it. By the time you're 13 or 14, it's entirely suitable. I mean, I read it when I was about that sort of age, and maybe slightly older, and could've read it earlier. If someone had given it to me when I was about 10, I would have loved it. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Jim in New York. Hi, Jim. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. JIM: Hi. Thanks. I just wanted to mention the sort of follow-up piece by Rudolf Rucker, called "Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension," which picks up sort of with the same arguments as "Flatland." Then also, to give an example of how the two-dimensional to three-dimensional allegory can be used to imagine a model of expanding space, if you imagine the three-dimensional sphere passing through the two-dimensional plane of Flatland, and then just imagine the space inside the sphere without the sphere, then imagine that happening at every point in that two-dimensional space, then convert that allegory to the same thing happening with four-dimensional space entering our three-dimensional universe, you get a pretty good way to picture expanding space. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, I think we'd have to see a picture of that, Jim. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Like A Square, I'm getting angry. I can't see past my perspective. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thanks for the call. It's hard to - you know, and that's why he puts diagrams in the book. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. IRA FLATOW, HOST: It's hard to just describe these things, right? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, it is. It is. And I think that's one of the points of the book, is that when you're challenged in that way, people get mad. The point gets mad. The line gets mad whenever someone introduces the idea that there's an extra dimension. And the narrator himself gets mad, until he finally accepts. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Is there any final message, Ian, to you in this book? Is there any over-encapsulating message that you could sum up simply, here? STEWART: I think it is the message of realizing that your own particular parochial little bit of universe is not necessarily everything there is, and that you really should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Great message for the weekend. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. I think we're going to end it right there. I'm going to gavel our Book Club closed for this month. We'll be having another selection next month. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yes. And you can join the chat at sciencefriday.com/bookchat and also write us at - I'm going to get it wrong, scifri... IRA FLATOW, HOST: Go to our website and click. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: ...at bookclub@sciencefriday.com and tell us what we should read next. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Oh, so we'll take a vote again on what book to read for next month. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yes. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. Thank you. I adjourn this meeting... IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...of the Book Club. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you to Dr. Stewart. Ian Stewart, the emeritus professor of mathematics, University of Warwick in England, author of the "The Annotated Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions." If you are a Flatland person, you want this book, because it really is very well-done. Thank you, Dr. Stewart, for joining us today. STEWART: It's a pleasure. Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And thank you, Flora. Thank you, Annette. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Thank you. ANNETTE HEIST, BYLINE: Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And thank you all on the phones for taking time to be with us today. And as I say, send your suggestions to bookclub@sciencefriday.com.

Mathematician Ian Stewart joins the Science Friday Book Club meeting to discuss Edwin Abbott's classic Flatland. The book, published in 1884 under the pseudonym "A. Square," tells the story of a two-dimensional world where women are straight lines and men are polygons.

Der Mathematiker Ian Stewart nimmt am Treffen des Buchclubs über Wissenschaft am Wochende teil, um über Edwin Abbotts Klassiker Flatland zu diskutieren. Das 1884 unter dem Pseudonym ,,Ein Quadrat“(A. Square) erschienene Buch erzählt die Geschichte einer zweidimensionalen Welt, in der Frauen gerade Linien und Männer Polygone sind.

数学家伊恩·斯图尔特加入科学星期五读书俱乐部会议，讨论埃德温·阿博特的经典著作《平面国》。该书出版于1884年，作者笔名“ A . 方块 ”，讲述的是一个女性为直线，男性是多边形的二维世界故事。

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, I'm Ira Flatow. If you have a smartphone or a tablet, you might want to pay attention to this story because last week a jury in California reached a verdict in a major patent battle case between electronics makers Apple and Samsung, a fight over the way their mobile devices worked and looked. IRA FLATOW, HOST: The jury found that Samsung had copied some of Apple's intellectual property and awarded Apple over a billion dollars in fines. But what comes next? And will that decision have any impact on what your next phone will look like? Joining me now is Christina Bonnington. She's a staff writer for Wired, based in San Francisco. IRA FLATOW, HOST: She was in the courtroom for the case. Welcome to the program. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Hi, Ira, thanks for having me. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Before we talk about the facts of the case, what's the courtroom like in a battle like that? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: So it's very quiet, and there's a lot of tension in the air. There's a lot at stake in this case, obviously upwards in billions in damages. There was Apple sitting on the plaintiff's side, which is the right side of the courtroom, and Samsung was on the left, and the - there were nine jurors. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And Apple made its presentation that - what was the Apple presentation like? I'm just curious because I know when they make those presentations, you know, new products, was it something like that? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: It was. So Apple's lawyers were incredibly practiced and very eloquent. They told a very compelling story for their case, and they told it in terms that were very easy for the jurors to understand. They had lots of well-done slides and pictures illustrating their points, and when they finished speaking, you were convinced that they were in the right. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Samsung, on the other hand, they were - they came across as being defensive a lot of the time and kind of brash sometimes. And their case was also a lot more complicated and involved much more technical terms, and so I think that might have been much harder for jurors to understand. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so what - what exactly did the jury find? They sort of had a mixed bag of things. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Right, so they found patent infringement for a whole host of Apple's intellectual property in the case. They found 28 cases of infringement for some of the smartphones involved. They upheld Apple's patents on iPhone and iPad design, and now Apple is seeking injunction against eight of those 28 smartphones that were found to be violating Apple's intellectual property. IRA FLATOW, HOST: But they didn't, the jury, rule equally on iPhones and iPads, did they? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: They didn't. Curiously, they did not find any evidence of infringement on Samsung's Galaxy Tab products, which look remarkably like the iPad. In my opinion, they look far more like the iPad than many of the phones they found to be infringing look like the iPhone. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And they did not - Apple didn't make a case of or bring it up, the pinching on - that kind of movement where you pinch to close things up, and you spread your fingers to widen it. That was not under litigation there, was it? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: No, that patent was not involved in this case. One that was heavily talked about is called the bounceback feature. So when you reach the end of a list in IOS, it kind of springs back into place, and so that's how you know you've reached the end of the list. And that's something that Samsung had originally included in its user interface on its Android phones. IRA FLATOW, HOST: I find it interesting that the thing that I think is their signature model, which is the pinching effect, they didn't care about or seem to want to protect that. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: It was - so the pinch to zoom, it's something that they've litigated with HTC against, I believe, in the past. They were using - they had a handful of other different user interface features. There's one, double-tap to zoom, so when you double-tap, say, a little article on the New York Times homepage, it'll, you know, expand to take up the full screen. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And that was in the core - the jury agreed that was something they owned. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Correct. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, what about - they talked about the shape of the corners, a rounded rectangle, things like that. What did the jury think about the design features? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Right, so the jury found that Samsung was infringing those design features and that those patents that Apple held were valid. There were two iPhone design patents, and one iPad one, and basically they cover a device that is a rectangle with rounded corners, a large screen on the front, a single button at the bottom, and then in the case of an iPhone, a lozenge-shaped earpiece at the top. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And did they find that both equally for the iPad and the iPhone? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: No, so they - so they found that there were a lot of cases of infringement for the iPhone but not for the iPad. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Do you have any explanation for that? Can you speculate on why that would be so different? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: You know, it's just very curious. They must have - you know, they had time to go hands-on with all of the products that were involved in the case, and so they may have, you know, seen from prior art that they thought that it was very clear that the phones involved stemmed from this iPhone design and - but not so much the tablets. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: There were several instances of tablets and tablet patented designs that existed before the iPad. So they may have thought that, you know, Samsung got their ideas from somewhere else. IRA FLATOW, HOST: So what's this going to do to buying a future Samsung or other brand that might - you know, has Apple put the fear in people of copying them now? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: We'll have to see. So one of the biggest consequences that could come out of this verdict is that the price of Android devices could go up in the future because now Apple's - this portion of Apple's patent portfolio has been validated by the court system, and Apple can pretty confidently go forward and start suing any other Android hardware manufacturers it thinks are infringing on these patents. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: And so that means these companies are going to be tied up and spending a lot of money in litigation against Apple, and they could also end up owing Apple money in damages or licensing fees. And both of those lead to increased costs for the manufacturer, which could be passed on to the consumer. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And on the other hand, the tablets may not be affected that much. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Right, so I would assume we'll continue seeing kind of similar-shaped tablets, you know, a large screen, maybe one to three buttons on the face. There hasn't been a lot of design innovation on the tablet front, which is kind of disappointing, but we probably will start seeing more innovative smartphone designs in the future. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Now, when we talked before, before the trial, the analysts were saying this is really not about Samsung, it's about Google and its Android operating system. That's the shot across the bow. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Right. IRA FLATOW, HOST: How will that affect Google? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: So Apple's - Steve Jobs had said in the past that he wanted to go thermonuclear on Android because he thought that they were just outright copying IOS, and he wouldn't stand for that. So this seems to be part of Apple's plan to go thermonuclear on Android. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: And what they're doing is going after - instead of going directly at Google, they're going after the individual hardware makers. And so this just makes it harder for them to keep their products on the shelves and harder for consumers to get their hands on these products. IRA FLATOW, HOST: There's been reports this week that Google and Apple's CEO, Larry Page and Tim Cook, have been talking about their patent fights. Is it possible that this will all somehow be settled, and the companies can reach some agreement outside of the courtroom? CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: It is possible. In most situations like this, the two parties do end up settling. The fact that this case event went to a jury trial is pretty unusual, you know, putting this complicated technology, all of these patents, in the hands of jurors to decide if they're valid or not and what's being infringed and not infringed - it was a big chance for both Apple and Samsung. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: So usually big giants like this will just talk amongst themselves, decide who owes who money behind closed doors. IRA FLATOW, HOST: To be continued, in other words. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Definitely. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right, Christina, thank you very much for taking time to talk with us. CHRISTINA BONNINGTON: Thanks, Ira. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Christina Bonnington is a staff writer for Wired, based in San Francisco, who was in the courtroom for that big fight.

Last week, a jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Apple in a patent battle with Samsung, fining Samsung over a billion dollars for copying parts of Apple's iPhone design and function. Christina Bonnington, who covered the courtroom saga for Wired, describes what the ruling might mean for other phone manufacturers and for consumers.

Letzte Woche entschied eine Jury in San Francisco in einem Patentstreit mit Samsung zugunsten von Apple und verurteilte Samsung zu einer Geldstrafe von über einer Milliarde Dollar für das Kopieren von Teilen von Apples iPhone-Design und -Funktion. Christina Bonnington, die für Wired über die Gerichtsverhandlung berichtete, beschreibt, was das Urteil für andere Telefonhersteller und Verbraucher bedeuten könnte.

上周，旧金山的一个陪审团在与三星的专利战中做出了有利于苹果的裁决，三星因抄袭苹果iPhone的部分设计和功能而被罚款10亿美元。曾为《连线》杂志报道过这场官司的克里斯蒂娜·伯宁顿描述了这项裁决对其他手机制造商和消费者可能产生的影响。

NOEL KING, HOST: Journalist Sam Dagher spent years in Syria reporting on war. He also reported on the lives of ordinary Syrians caught in the middle of the fighting. His new book is called "Assad Or We Burn The Country." It tells the story of Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar and their rule in Syria. The story is told in large part through the Assad family's friendship with another Syrian family, the Tlass family. The Tlasses had helped the father and son keep their grip on power for decades. NOEL KING, HOST: I talked to Sam Dagher, and I first asked him about the book's title. SAM DAGHER: I saw this slogan on the walls of destroyed and deserted towns and neighborhoods. The Assad regime besieged a lot of these towns and neighborhoods in Damascus and elsewhere around the country that had risen up against the regime. The regime forces would go in and do what the regime calls the cleansing of this area. So they would sometimes execute whoever they find in these places, loot all the homes down to the tiles and the copper wire in the wall and burn these homes. And after they're done, they would spray this graffiti on the walls, Assad or we burn the country. NOEL KING, HOST: Sam, in this book, you're telling the story of the Assad family, but you're also telling the story of another Syrian family. Tell me about this lost family and their relationship with the Assads. SAM DAGHER: The relationship goes all the way back to the early '50s when Mustafa Tlass and Hafez al-Assad were in their early 20s. They were cadets at the Homs Military Academy. And they basically rose up together to the pinnacle of power until - you know, Mustafa Tlass was up by Hafez's side all the way through. I mean, he was willing to kill for him by his own admission in his own memoirs. He played a crucial role in the passing of power from Hafez to Bashar. NOEL KING, HOST: So you have these two men, Hafez and Mustafa. And then they both have sons. And their sons are Bashar al-Assad and Manaf Tlass. Tell me about the relationship between those two men. SAM DAGHER: So Hafez al-Assad had four sons and one daughter, and the eldest was Bassel, and he was the one being groomed to take over power from his father, but he died in a car crash. So Bashar was summoned to Damascus to basically fill Bassel's shoes. I mean, initially, members of the family, even Bashar's own sister, felt he was hopeless. You know, Bashar was not equipped to inherit power. SAM DAGHER: Initially, Manaf was very close to Bassel. I mean, he was his childhood friend. But when Bassel died and Bashar became the heir, obviously, the friendship and the loyalties were transferred to Bashar. And Manaf was by Bashar's side, you know, from the get-go. SAM DAGHER: You know, in 2011, when the uprising started, here, Manaf made the break and said, you know, I'm not going to be like my father, Mustafa; I'm not going to kill, you know, to preserve this regime. So he stepped back and eventually had to leave the country. NOEL KING, HOST: When you talked to Manaf Tlass, who was a loyalist for so long, what does he say is the moment when he said, I got to get out of this - this friendship, this country? SAM DAGHER: Initially, when the uprising started, Manaf was trying to convince Bashar not to use violence, not to actually shoot protesters. But the problem is, you know, Bashar was surrounded by these hardliners - his brother Maher al-Assad and his cousin Hafez Makhlouf. So this is very much a family affair ruling Syria. These people were for actually shooting people from the first day. And the idea was if you shot enough people from the first day, you would scare them off the streets. That was the logic. NOEL KING, HOST: That had worked in Syria before. SAM DAGHER: Exactly. NOEL KING, HOST: How did Manaf Tlass end up getting out of Syria? SAM DAGHER: I mean, it's like a Hollywood thriller. I mean, he began plotting his exit with his wife and the French, and while, you know, continuing to send to Bashar signals of the family's continued loyalty to the regime. He was smuggled out of Syria by a smuggler that works for the French. And then he was taken out to France. But everybody had to leave. I mean, the wife, the children, his father, Mustafa, and anybody, you know, close to the family. NOEL KING, HOST: Did you think at all about whether it was problematic telling the recent history of Syria through this man who is not entirely unproblematic, given his long relationship with the regime? SAM DAGHER: His insights into the regime's mindset and methods were absolutely invaluable. I don't think I could've been able to describe the regime the way I did without his contributions. Everything he said was cross-checked and verified with others. And in a lot of instances, he was very unhappy with me coming back to him and saying, well, look; other people describe this incident this way, and you described it that way. He would get furious with me. I mean, one time, he kicked a table - a coffee table - and just walked out. NOEL KING, HOST: Wow. SAM DAGHER: I do have other characters in the book. Mainly, I decided to focus on the people who resisted the regime peacefully. The story has a rich tapestry of characters, of other voices in there. NOEL KING, HOST: Do you think fundamentally, we understand Syria? Your average Westerner who's been following the war, who is sympathetic toward the Syrian people - do we understand well enough what's going on? SAM DAGHER: Sadly, no, because we see it through the prism. I mean, at least now, we see it only through this prism of ISIS and the refugees. NOEL KING, HOST: What's missing from that? SAM DAGHER: I mean, a deeper understanding of why Syrians rose up in the first place. I mean, this is a regime that's been in power for 50 years. It has outlasted eight U.S. presidents since Nixon. Think about that. And Bashar's organizing elections again in 2021, and he intends to run. So there's a chance he will probably outlast Trump, even if Trump wins a second term. NOEL KING, HOST: Sam Dagher is author of the book "Assad Or We Burn The Country." He also contributes to The Atlantic. Sam, thank you so much for being with us. SAM DAGHER: You're welcome, Noel.

NPR's Noel King talks to journalist Sam Dagher about his book Assad or We Burn the Country: How One Family's Lust for Power Destroyed Syria.

Noel King von NPR spricht mit dem Journalisten Sam Dagher über sein Buch Assad oder wir verbrennen das Land: Wie die Gier einer Familie nach Macht Syrien zerstörte (Assad or We Burn the Country: How One Family's Lust for Power Destroyed Syria).

NP 新闻的诺尔·金与记者山姆·达格尔谈论他的书《阿萨德或烧毁我们的国家》：一个家族的权力欲如何摧毁了叙利亚。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: President Trump's disagreement with Japan's prime minister demonstrates his personal brand of diplomacy. NOEL KING, HOST: That's right. The president has been visiting Tokyo. He met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Their summit came after North Korea tested missiles. Now, Japan and key figures in the Trump administration say that testing violates U.N. resolutions, but President Trump says he's not bothered by it. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: One of many things heard by NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, who is traveling with the president - is currently in Japan. Hi there, Ayesha. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Hello. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So we should mention, the news conference at which the president made that remark next to Shinzo Abe came after a lengthy meeting. What came out of it? AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: So really, this trip overall was about showing how close the U.S. and Japan are, how close Trump and Abe are. And that was on display here at the press conference. Abe, in particular, was very complimentary of Trump. He repeatedly said how he wanted to praise Trump for taking a new approach with North Korea. He even said that Trump was responsible for cracking Kim Jong Un's shell of distrust. But, as you mentioned, there were some divisions there. Trump downplayed North Korea's latest missile launches. And Abe had this to say. PRIME MINISTER SHINZO ABE: (Speaking Japanese). STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: I guess we should do a little translation here... AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: For those that don't speak... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah. Go ahead, please. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yeah. For those that don't speak Japanese, he called the test a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution. And he said it was regrettable that this happened. So even though the countries are saying they're on the same page - and, largely, they do seem to be - there are some differences there. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What else was the president saying as he stood next to the Japanese prime minister? AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Well, over and over again, Trump was talking about how he expects to make all these deals on national security or on trade with various countries. What you didn't hear was how he will actually make it happen. He said he expects an agreement with China. Here's more on that. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think sometime in the future, China and the United States will absolutely have a great trade deal. And we look forward to that. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: But he didn't say how those two countries will be able to come together. Talks have really fallen apart. The countries are now trading tariffs and retaliating against each other. He's also talking about a quick deal with Japan and said there may be a big announcement on this by August. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: But he didn't say how those countries are going to come together on the issue of car imports. Japan does not want tariffs. And Trump has said that he's looking at that. He's considering it, and he hasn't taken that off the table. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Let me ask about one thing that was said there about China, Ayesha. Is this correct? The president also said China wants to make a deal. They're ready to make a deal with us, the United States, but we're not ready to make a deal. Did he say, again, he's comfortable just having higher and higher tariffs against China? AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: That was much of what he was saying. Obviously, he continues to state inaccurately that China is paying all the tariffs. It is importers who are paying - U.S. importers who are paying the tariffs. But he basically is now kind of saying that China wishes they would have made the deal; they're kind of suffering. And we - and now we're not ready to make a deal. They have to kind of come to us, basically - or come to the U.S. to make the deal. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: But the U.S. is selling a bunch of F-35 fighter planes to Japan. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yeah. So this is a product of Japan's efforts, obviously, to build up their military, but also to win over some favor from the U.S. and lower that trade deficit which Trump is so concerned about. So this is a way - these F-35s are not cheap. And so they cost a lot of money. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Ayesha, thanks so much. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Thank you. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Ayesha Rascoe. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK, huge election result here - centrists in Europe have lost their majority. NOEL KING, HOST: That's right. Over the weekend, the European Union held parliamentary elections. Nationalist and far-right parties gained seats, but they did not win in a landslide that a lot of people had predicted. Liberals and Green parties also did very well. And it's notable that this was the highest turnout for European elections in 25 years. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Sylvia Poggioli has been following the elections from Rome. Hi there, Sylvia. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Hi, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What do you make of all this? SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, the bottom line is, as you said, the populists did well in some countries. But those fearful forecasts of a hard-right victory across the EU did not pan out. One reason seems to be a very high turnout - overall, something like 51% compared to 43% five years ago. And that's apparently thanks to young, pro-EU voters who cast ballots for Greens. Those parties scored very well in Northern Europe. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: The populists did succeed in depriving the center-left and center-right parties of the majority they held for 40 years in the European Parliament. They've gained 5% from the last EU elections. But populists are expected to get only around 25% of Parliament seats. Nevertheless, there were some standout populist victories. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Here's the victorious Matteo Salvini, Italian deputy prime minister and leader of the hard-right League. MATTEO SALVINI: (Speaking Italian). SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: So, clutching a rosary, Salvini said, "not only is the League the top party in Italy. Marine Le Pen is the top party in France. Nigel Farage is the top party in the U.K. So Italy, France, the U.K. - it's a sign of Europe that's changing." And, you know, Marine Le Pen's hard-right party came in ahead of the party of French President Emmanuel Macron, the champion of a stronger EU. And the League, here in Italy, scored 34%, and that makes it the biggest party in the EU Parliament. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, what is driving the far-right in multiple countries to gain? SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Well, you know, EU bureaucrats have been accused of dealing very poorly with many recent issues. There was the economic stagnation following the global financial crisis, very high unemployment rates, especially among the young in Southern Europe, mass-casualty terrorist attacks that raised concerns over lack of security - but of course, most of all, the refugee crisis that led to an influx of unprecedented numbers of migrants in Europe. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Populists have fueled fears and anxiety over what they call an invasion. Here's the autocratic prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, whose party scored more than 50% in the EU vote. PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN: We reject migration. And we would like to see leaders in position of European Unions who reject the migration, who would like to stop it and not to manage it. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. Sylvia, from that one quote, we can figure out what far-right means in Hungary. But does it mean the same in all European countries? What do they all stand for? SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: No. There's a - you know, they're not united on all issues. For example, Italy's Salvini wants much looser rules on budgetary discipline. That's rejected by German and other North European populists. Salvini also wants other member states to take in many of the refugees that are in Italy. Hungary's Orban and other East Europeans rule that out. So they won't be able - the populists won't be able to reshape the European Union in their image, but they could seriously obstruct and slow down the whole legislative process. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Sylvia, thanks for your insights. SYLVIA POGGIOLI, BYLINE: Thank you, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Sylvia Poggioli in Rome. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: In this country, the state of Oklahoma has settled with a second pharmaceutical company for its role in the opioid crisis. Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals will be paying the state $85 million. That follows an earlier settlement with Purdue Pharma, the makers of the painkiller OxyContin, for $270 million. NOEL KING, HOST: Yeah, this case against Teva isn't unusual. It's one of hundreds happening across the country. Local and state governments are suing the drug industry. They say the companies marketed and incentivized the sale of opioids, and that contributed to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths across the country. In the state of Oklahoma alone, thousands of people have died. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: We're joined now by Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio, who covers opioid litigation for NPR - which, Brian, I guess, gives you a lot to do. BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: Yeah, there's a lot these days. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: And good morning. How important is this latest settlement? BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: Well, there's a big practical side to this, Steve. Local governments in Oklahoma will now get some cash to help pay for things like law enforcement and rehab programs that could save lives. But this is also part of a growing trend, with drug companies around the U.S. trying to get out from under this legal and public-relations cloud. They're accused of getting millions of Americans hooked on opioid medications through the use of this aggressive and misleading marketing. And that's just been a huge burden on the entire industry. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Now, the news here is out of Oklahoma. But we should note there are many governments - state and local governments - in many states who are suing pharmaceutical companies. And I gather you've been travelling around talking with people in some of the areas that are suing. BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: That's right. I traveled out to Summit County, Ohio, to see how that local community is dealing with this and the costs. And I spoke to Richard Milhof. He's struggled with addiction himself. And says a lot of his neighbors got hooked on these prescription opioid medications. RICHARD MILHOF: A lot my friends are passed away. They've overdosed and died... BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: I'm very sorry. I hope... RICHARD MILHOF: Almost every single friend that I had, that I grew up with, is dead because of it. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Wow. One sense of the human cost. And then there's the dollar cost in government after government after government. BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: That's right. This heavy burden is falling on local governments around the country. They're paying for everything from law enforcement to, you know, needle exchange programs. I spoke with Donna Skoda, who heads Summit County's public health department. And she told me about kind of a surprising aspect of this, Steve. The county's budget exploded because of the need for new foster care. DONNA SKODA: The increase in the number of children they've had to take for safety reasons, I mean, it's just doubled - and then not to mention the children that have been orphaned. So it just complicates everything. But it has been devastating. BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: In this one Ohio county, taxpayers have spent nearly $70 million the last few years responding to this crisis. Local officials across the U.S. say this is the kind of financial burden that Big Pharma should pay for. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Brian, I think your reporting is suggesting to us why it might be that not all pharmaceutical companies have settled their lawsuits - because they might face lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit in city after city and state after state, right? BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: That's exactly right. And of course, back in Oklahoma there is still a suit there against Johnson & Johnson, one of the nation's biggest corporations, the biggest drug maker. They've denied any wrongdoing. But, you know, if big firms like this are found liable for cleaning up the opioid mess, the payouts could grow fast from the millions of dollars into the billions. So this is going to be watched very closely. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Brian, thanks so much. BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: Thank you, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio.

President Trump meets with Japan's prime minister. It appears populists and nationalists are gaining more seats in Europe's Parliament. And, Teva Pharmaceuticals agrees to settle Oklahoma opioid case.

Präsident Trump trifft sich mit Japans Premierminister. Es scheint, dass Populisten und Nationalisten mehr Sitze im europäischen Parlament erhalten. Und Teva Pharmaceuticals erklärt sich bereit, den Opioid-Fall in Oklahoma beizulegen.

特朗普总统会见日本首相。民粹主义者和民族主义者似乎正赢得欧洲议会中更多席位。Teva制药公司同意解决俄克拉荷马州阿片类药物案件。

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: This is Lulu's log - stardate, November 12, 2017 - where we consider matters of space, the stars and the universe. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Ever hear that you're made from stardust? Well, it's true. The elements that make up our bodies are flung at high velocity from stars as they die. Iair Arcavi is a postdoctoral fellow at UC Santa Barbara, and he joins us now to talk about a star that didn't seem to want to die and what it may tell us about our beginnings. Iair, thanks for joining us. IAIR ARCAVI: Thanks for having me. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: You observed an unusual supernova. So first of all remind us, what is a supernova? IAIR ARCAVI: Yeah, so a supernova is the explosion of a star. Stars more massive than our sun - about 10 times bigger or more - will end their lives in a huge explosion where the star first collapses and its center gets crushed down to something called a neutron star, which has about the mass of our sun but is about the size of a city. That's the densest material we know. And the rest of the star flies out in an explosion at thousands of miles per second, shining as bright as a billion suns. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Wow. But this supernova that you have observed - that's not what's happening. Now, let me see if I get this right. Its full name is iPTF14hls. Is that right? IAIR ARCAVI: That's right. I apologize for that. We don't have a better name. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: I was about to say not very snappy. But it stayed bright for almost three years. Describe what you've observed. IAIR ARCAVI: Yeah. So a normal supernova would get bright and then fade after a few months, and then we never see it again. This supernova was very strange in that it got bright and faint like a normal supernova, but then it kind of changed its mind and got bright again and faint again at least five times. And now, three years later, we can still see it. So that in itself is very peculiar because it means it has some kind of additional energy source. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Do we know why it's doing this? This is the first time it's been observed. But are there theories that might explain what it's doing? IAIR ARCAVI: So the other weird thing about this supernova was that when we looked in the archives, we found an image taken in 1954 on photographic plate of that galaxy. And it shows the supernova going off back then. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: So explain to me what might be behind this. Why is it behaving this way? IAIR ARCAVI: Well, the short answer is we don't really understand. There is no theory that can explain all of the observations we see which is why we're so excited about this. The little longer answer is that there is a theory that can explain part of it. So we think very massive stars of about 100 times the mass of the sun could actually have these partial explosions that leave the star intact but still look like a very big explosion from where we're looking. And they could happen decades apart, as we see here. And then the star would eventually have a final explosion. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Why is this important? What does it tell us about what we know? IAIR ARCAVI: Well, to me, it's the most exciting kind of discovery we can make in science, which is something we didn't expect, don't understand and caught us completely by surprise and that challenges all of our theories that we thought were good until now. So since we don't understand it, we don't yet know what the full implications of this discovery are. IAIR ARCAVI: But already we know that we need a new theory of how very massive stars evolve and how they explode. And depending on how common these events are, we might need a new theory of how galaxies survive this kind of energy and mass input. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Iair Acarvi is an observational astronomer at UC Santa Barbara and Las Cumbres Observatory. Thank you so much. IAIR ARCAVI: Thank you.

NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Iair Arcavi, postdoctoral fellow in astrophysics at UC Santa Barbara, about the strange behavior of supernova iPTF14hls. This star doesn't seem to want to die.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro vom NPR spricht mit Iair Arcavi, Postdoc in Astrophysik an der UC Santa Barbara, über das seltsame Verhalten von Supernova-iPTF14hls. Dieser Star scheint nicht sterben zu wollen.

NPR的卢卢·加西亚·纳瓦罗与加州大学圣巴巴拉分校天体物理学博士后伊尔·阿卡维谈论超新星IPTF14HL的奇怪行为。这位明星似乎不想死。

ALEX CHADWICK, host: It's Day to Day. I'm Alex Chadwick. MADELEINE BRAND, host: I'm Madeleine Brand. In South America, unrest in Bolivia has sparked a hemisphere-wide diplomatic crisis that's reached all the way up to Washington, D.C. Bolivia and Venezuela are blaming their favorite punching bag, the Bush administration, for anti-government protest in Bolivia, and they've expelled the American ambassadors in their countries, both in Bolivia and Venezuela. The U.S. has retaliated, and in Washington today, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack addressed the expulsions. Mr. SEAN MCCORMACK (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State): We regret the actions of both President Hugo Chavez and President Evo Morales who expelled our ambassadors in Venezuela and Bolivia respectively. This reflects the weakness and desperation of these leaders as they face internal challenges and an inability to communicate effectively internationally in order to build international support. MADELEINE BRAND, host: To tell us more about the situation, we're joined now by NPR's Juan Forero. He's in Bogota, Colombia. And Juan, let's just get a little background. How did this all get started, this tit for tat? JUAN FORERO: Well, Madeline, it all started in Bolivia, where President Evo Morales, an indigenous leader who wants to transform his country to socialism, has been under siege. The eastern region of that country, which is wealthier and less indigenous than the rest, has been protesting against policies, like his land reforms and his close ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. And the protests have been getting violent. On Thursday, at least eight people died, and Venezuela has inserted itself in Bolivia. President Chavez says he's going to send military forces to fight against anti-government forces, if Morales is in trouble or if he gets toppled. MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, where does the United States come in, and the ambassadors? JUAN FORERO: Well, both Chavez and Morales frequently criticize the U.S., saying the Bush administration wants to overthrow their governments and take over the natural resources in those countries. And in Bolivia, the ambassador, Philip Goldberg, had met with opposition leaders. The United States says it's not taking sides, but Morales decided on Wednesday to expel Philip Goldberg. And that set off a whole chain of events that ended with Chavez pulling his ambassador from Washington and expelling the American ambassador from Caracas. MADELEINE BRAND, host: And then, didn't Washington expel the Bolivian ambassador from Washington? JUAN FORERO: Washington did expel the Bolivian ambassador in retaliation, and Washington also expelled the Venezuelan ambassador. But Chavez had preempted the American move and had already ordered his ambassador back to Venezuela anyway. MADELEINE BRAND, host: So, Juan, all these ambassadors being recalled and expelled, what does it all mean? JUAN FORERO: I think what worries some people is that Chavez has said that he might cut off oil supplies to the United States. So, he says he'll do that only if the United States invades. For the Bush administration, this means just more headaches in its waning days, and the United States is not popular in Latin American. I think more importantly, it just shows the huge challenges that the incoming government in Washington, whether it's Obama or McCain, will face in trying to patch up relations here. MADELEINE BRAND, host: NPR's Juan Forero in Bogota, Colombia. Thank you, Juan. JUAN FORERO: Thank you.

Violence in remote parts of Bolivia is being felt across Latin America. Venezuela has expelled the U.S. ambassador, while Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and other countries seek to help restore order.

In ganz Lateinamerika ist die Gewalt in abgelegenen Teilen Boliviens zu spüren. Venezuela hat den US-Botschafter ausgewiesen, während Argentinien, Brasilien, Kolumbien und andere Länder versuchen, zur Wiederherstellung der Ordnung beizutragen.

整个拉丁美洲都能感受到玻利维亚偏远地区的暴力冲突。委内瑞拉将美国大使驱逐出境，而阿根廷、巴西、哥伦比亚和其他国家在设法帮助恢复秩序。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This week, fans of the Seattle Mariners learned that Ichiro Suzuki's road to the baseball Hall of Fame will take a detour through Yankee Stadium. Eleven and a half years after he came over from Japan, the Mariners traded the great Ichiro to the Yankees. A couple of years ago, Ben Gibbard recorded a tribute to the electrifying outfielder. Gibbard is the man behind the indie rock darlings Death Cab for Cutie and grew up listening to Dave Niehaus describe his exploits on TV and radio. He decided this week was the right time to release "Ichiro's Theme." BEN GIBBARD: (Singing) He slaps the ball with the greatest of ease, and when he steals second, he don't say please. If they're not careful, he'll take third too. Oh, Ichiro, it's why we love you. Now, go, go, go, go, Ichiro, rounding third and heading for home. Don't you know he beats the throw. And Dave says on the radio, Ichiro, you're unbelievable. Now, go, go, go, go, Ichiro... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Dave Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie. After three games on road grays, Ichiro makes his debut in Yankee pinstripes tomorrow night in the Bronx. Tomorrow in this hour, Ira Flatow with TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. We'll see you again on Monday. BEN GIBBARD: (Singing) Ichiro, you're unbelievable. Ichiro, you're unbelievable. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie is a lifelong Seattle Mariners fan, and such an Ichiro Suzuki devotee he wrote a song about the outfielder. Though he wrote it years ago, he decided this week — when Suzuki was traded to the New York Yankees — was the right time to release "Ichiro's Theme."

Ben Gibbard von Death Cab for Cutie ist ein lebenslanger Fan der Seattle Mariners, und als solcher Ichiro Suzuki-Anhänger hat er einen Song über den Outfielder geschrieben. Obwohl er es vor Jahren geschrieben hat, entschied er, dass diese Woche – als Suzuki von der New York Yankees unterzeichnet wurde – der richtige Zeitpunkt war, \"Ichiro Thema\" zu veröffentlichen.

俏妞的死亡计程车中的本·吉伯德是西雅图水手队的死忠粉，也是铃木一郎的忠实粉丝。所以他写了一首关于这位外野手的歌。虽然这是他几年前写的，但他觉得本周铃木一郎转会至纽约洋基队是发行“一郎主题之歌”的最好时机。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya, and this is News & Notes. April is National Poetry Month. To help us celebrate, we invited California's Poet Laureate, Al Young, to NPR West to talk more about the art and the joys of poetry. His latest book is called "Something About the Blues: An Unlikely Collection of Poetry." It's unlikely in part because it includes a CD of him reading his works, often with jazz and blues accompaniment. Mr. Young, welcome. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You can tell when you listen to this CD that you like what you do. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I love it. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Yeah. What do you like specifically about reading your work to an audience that makes it different, perhaps, from writing it for the page? Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): It's like playing music to an audience. To play the music and not feel the responsive vibrations, something coming back, is meaningless to me. But what happens in a live context when you are reciting or reading your poetry, it's only partially complete when you're reading it. It's completed when it's received. And poetry's very much like music. It's vibration and frequency. And it affects us in ways that we don't altogether understand. But we know it's happening. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What kind of inspiration did it take to make you into a poet? Who did you read? When did you start reading, or did someone read to you as a child that made you love poetry? Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I started reading at the age of three, and I like to think that it's because of my parents, who were working-class people, who only had - both my mother and father only graduated from the eighth grade. So that they read, and they read a lot. And put their arms around me while they read. And I'm convinced that that has a lot to do with getting you to understand how to read. I would look at their mouths and I'd look at the page, and somehow, I figured it out. Then I tortured everybody by reading every sign, everything, which I still do. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So if you had to name a few other people, and I'm sure there'd be a long list. But just one or two people who you love. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Gwendolyn Brooks, Langston Hughes, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Kenneth Rexroth. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Some of those names... Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Denise Levertov. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Some of these names I know and some I don't. And I think there are a lot of people like me out there, who like poetry, but they don't necessarily know - they don't have a long history with poetry. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Yes. Yes, yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Are you afraid that poetry is still viewed as very ivory tower for some people, or do you think, for example. The Spoken Word movement has brought more people into the fold, or maybe a little bit of both? Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I think the Spoken Word movement has brought more people into the fold. Modernism is what we're not talking about here, which is the culprit. When Mr. Eliot and Mr. Pound devised modernism for Americans - curious that they should both be ex-patriots - they wrote in such a way that a lot of people didn't find poetry accessible. And poetry has always been popular with the people. So that poetry took refuge in colleges and universities, where it had to be explained. And that's where it remains today. And our poets go to college to learn how to write poetry. And there's a built-in problem with that, in that erudition and book learning is extolled as one of the high achievements of a poet. And it can get in the way of one's poetry, because I think that experience should be the first thing on your list to pay attention to. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): So that modernism split when that happened. It split into the kind of academic, arcane, mandarin modernism, you know, try and figure this out. And it went into another vein, which was populous modernism. People like Marianne Moore, or Vachel Lindsay, or Carl Sandberg, or Langston Hughes, who used modernist techniques. OK, we're not going to rhyme, we're not going to necessarily have a regular beat. But we're going to write stuff that you can understand. So that's the branch that I was baptized in. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I want to talk about some of your work. One of the poems in the book that's also on the CD, is called "Conjugal Visits." Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Oh, yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It's just so real. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): It's based on something that was real. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell me about it. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I was teaching in a program called Community Studies, which was an interdisciplinary program, work-study program. You'd go to school for a while, and then you'd go out and work, and then you'd come back and write about it. And there was a woman enrolled in one of my classes who had four kids, and a husband in San Quentin. Her third husband, by whom she had no kids. This was in the 1980s, when San Quentin was experimenting with conjugal visits. She'd say, Mr. Young, I won't be in class because it's conjugal visiting day at the 'Q'. And so I finally ask her about it. And her body language was of two kinds. She was smiling and obviously joyous when she talked about how it was to go see her husband once a month. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): And then her body language changed and she got very severe, and she sat up in her seat across from my desk, and she said, and when I get back to my - to Santa Cruz, and I'm trying to do my schoolwork and take care of my kids, do my job, he can't mess with me because he's locked up in the joint. And this kind of thing. So she had obviously solved her problems. She had her man, but you know, she didn't have to put up with him all the time. But the subtext of it is about our society's policy of just warehousing people, so it's a matter of priorities. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In your work as not just a poet but as a teacher, what's your mission? Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): To remind people that we are spirit, we are essentially divine. That's been really obscured in the 20th century with so much slaughter and so much murder and homicide, a lot of it sanctioned by governments. So that we forget that we are divine. I think the ancients understood. Our ancestors understood this better than we do. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: It strikes me that your politics are probably somewhat different from the man who granted you the Poet Laureate position, Governor Schwarzenegger. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Who has called your ability to inspire something that really influenced your position. But how do you deal with obviously being someone who's very politically conscious and also operating in this world of arts and letters and in this world, this sort of quasi-governmental world, because that is part of your appointment, to be this ambassador for the state on some level? Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Not only for the state, but the State Department still sends me out abroad to represent the country. And I speak my mind, but they still send me out. I don't know how one reconciles this. I think you have to be true to yourself, and I always am. And in my initial interview with the governor, I stated my politics. And he understood it. And I didn't think he was going to appoint me, but he did anyway. So obviously something is getting across that's useful. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I wonder if you could read a poem for us. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I would love to. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: You know, I love "Conjugal Visits." FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But I'm sure that there's something else that you want to share with us. You have your poems about California, poems about the blues. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): I've got one. The once called "Who I Am in Twilight." And it's a poem that is actually emblazoned on the sidewalk. And it's set in stone, as it were, on something called "Poetry Walk" in Berkeley, California. They put down on sidewalk, Addison Street, about a hundred poets', I think, work. So it's fun to go over there and see how posterity works, because always somebody has dropped some pizza on it, mashed out a cigarette on it, or something like that. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): So don't live for posterity, live for now. But here it is. "Who I am in Twilight." Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Like John Lee Hooker, like Lightnin' Hopkins, like the blues himself. The Trickster Sonnet, hoedown, the tango, the cante jondo. Like blessed spirituals and ragas, custom-made. Like sagas. Like stories. Like slick, slow, sly, soliloquies sliding into dramas. Like crime and punishment. Like death and birth. Canal Street, New Orleans. Like the easy, erasable, troubled voices a whirling ceiling fan makes in deep summer nights in hot, un-heavenly hotels. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee. Like the Mississippi River so deep and wide, you couldn't get a letter to the other side. Like Grand Canyon. Like Yosemite National Park. Like beans and cornbread. Like rest and recreation. Like love and like. I know we last. I know our bleeding stops. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Al Young, thank you so much. Mr. AL YOUNG (California's Poet Laureate): Thank you. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: California Poet Laureate Al Young. His latest book is called "Something About the Blues: An Unlikely Collection of Poetry."

In honor of National Poetry Month, Farai Chideya talks with Al Young, California's Poet Laureate, about the art and joys of poetry. His latest book, Something About the Blues, includes a CD of Young reading his works, often with jazz accompaniment.

Zum Andenken des Nationaler Monates der Poesie spricht Farai Chideya mit Al Young, dem kalifornischen Dichterpreisträger, über die Kunst und die Freuden der Poesie. Sein neuestes Buch, Einige Dinge über den Blues, enthält eine CD, auf der Young oft mit Jazzbegleitung seine Werke liest.

为了纪念全国诗歌月，法莱·奇德亚与加州桂冠诗人艾尔·杨探讨了诗歌的艺术和乐趣。他的最新著作《关于蓝调的一些事》中包括一张碟片，杨在其中刻录了自己朗读作品的声音，经常以爵士乐伴奏。

JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Jennifer Ludden, in Washington. Last week, George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida, asked for a new judge in his murder trial. Zimmerman's attorney claimed his current judge is biased because, in a recent ruling, he declared that Zimmerman had, quote, "flaunted the system." JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is the second judge on the case. The first one recused herself after Zimmerman also accused her of a conflict of interest. This got us thinking: When is a judge deemed biased, and who decides? And is it fair to expect judges to be utterly impartial arbiters? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We want to hear from lawyers. If you've dealt with the issues of judicial bias, tell us your story. Our number is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation at our website. Go to npr.org and click on TALK OF THE NATION. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Later in the program, we'll talk with - about public officials and taxes. Should they have to disclose their returns? But first, Steven Lubet is a professor of law at Northwestern University, where he focuses on legal ethics, and he's co-author of the book "Judicial Conduct and Ethics." He joins us now by phone from his office in Chicago, Illinois. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Steven, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION. STEVEN LUBET: Very glad to be here. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So how do you define judicial bias? STEVEN LUBET: The courts define bias as favoritism or an inclination to favor one party to the litigation or one of the lawyers. So they exclude things like predisposition to have a certain view of the law. It needs to be personal, or directly in favor or against one side of the case. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So you can't read bias in their whole history of decisions from the bench. STEVEN LUBET: Well, typically you can't read bias through their whole history of decisions. And another factor, which is directly relevant to the Zimmerman situation, is that it needs to come from something outside the case itself. This is called, sometimes, the extrajudicial source rule. So if a judge got mad at Mr. Zimmerman for something that happened in the course of the case, that would not be bias. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Huh. Interesting. Now, the - is it true that the definition, though, or the parameters for deciding bias can vary from state to state? STEVEN LUBET: There is a general approach that most states follow, which is called - the issue is whether there is a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality. But some states have adopted different rules. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And then what about state versus federal courts? STEVEN LUBET: A reasonable question about impartiality is the rule in federal courts. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK, and can you just give us examples of, you know, something that - either in your own experience or a theoretical example that would qualify, that would meet these parameters? STEVEN LUBET: Well, there's a famous federal case in which the trial judge held some stock in a company that was going to be affected by the outcome of the case. So he didn't own any shares in the actual hospital corporation, but he - actually, he was a trustee of a university that was going to be selling some land if the deal went through. So that's a pretty famous example where the judge was disqualified. STEVEN LUBET: Other cases have happened where, you know, somebody is related by marriage or owns stock in a company, or something like that. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. Is there a most common list of allegations, a most common reason people might suggest this or allege this? STEVEN LUBET: Well, the most common one, of course, is some sort of financial relationship. That happens fairly often, and usually judges just step aside on, you know, of their own accord when something like that shows up. There's also the situation where a judge might have a relative - say the judge is sitting in criminal cases and has a child or a spouse who works for the public defender or the prosecutor or the probation department. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. And then who decides? I mean, is it always the judge who recuses him- or herself? Is there someone who decides for them whether this is a legitimate concern and they should not hear that case? STEVEN LUBET: That's a pretty sensitive issue, actually, and it differs from state to state. Almost everywhere, motions to disqualify a judge go initially to the judge herself or himself. Then, in many places, many states, the motion would be referred to another judge, which seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Well, are you being facetious or... STEVEN LUBET: No. I think it... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Yes, it does make sense. STEVEN LUBET: It makes a lot of sense to send a motion like that to somebody else, but not every court does that, and rather famously, the United States Supreme Court doesn't do that. You know, the Supreme Court... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Well, yes. Which is we all - yes. That's maybe what most people are familiar with. STEVEN LUBET: Yeah, I thought that you were headed there. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: They're an exception, then. STEVEN LUBET: Well, they're an exception in the sense that there's no appeal. So in a state, for example, where each judge makes their own decision, there's always an appeal. You can appeal to a higher court within the state. You can appeal to the federal courts. So every single judge in the United States is subject to some sort of review for bias, with the exception of the nine who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court who solely, independently, idiosyncratically and individually decide whether they're biased or not, and that's the end of it. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. All right. Let's get a caller in on the conversation, here. Miriam is in Kansas City, Missouri. Welcome to the show. MIRIAM: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be on. My comment is that I live in, you know, obviously, the heart of the Bible Belt, and I find that the conservative bent of a lot of judges tends to manifest itself a lot, especially in family law cases. You know, if you have a parent - for example, a mother or father - who's, you know, had a misspent youth, so to speak, I find that a lot of the judges, that the conservative judges tend to focus on that. And it spills over - has a tendency to spill over into their analysis of how good a parent that particular person is at the present time. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: That sounds like a hard thing, though, to base an accusation on, no? MIRIAM: Well, it is. And it's absolutely not something that you can get a judge removed for bias for, no matter how obvious it may or may not be. You know, for example, I've had judges issue opinions where, you know, they've found things, you know, for example, you know, said that there was, you know, alcohol or drug use when - in the past, when nobody has even alleged it. And it's just been based on, you know, a bar fight or something like that. STEVEN LUBET: Well, conservatism - being conservative socially or religiously or politically, would fall into the category of, say, predisposition, and not bias. It's something that the rules of ethics just cannot take into account, that people come to the bench with a life experience, and they tend to view the world in a particular way. STEVEN LUBET: Sometimes it's enlightened, whatever your definition of that might be, and, you know, sometimes it's not. But that's inherent in the system of having people act as judges. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, Miriam, thanks for the call. MIRIAM: Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Well, that leads me to a question of, you know, is it fair to expect a judge to be utterly impartial? I guess there is a distinction there, are you just said. STEVEN LUBET: Well, that's why impartiality is defined as relating to a party to the case or a - or one of the lawyers, and rather as a general outlook on life. Because once you start calling outlook bias, there's nobody who's free. There's nobody who's unaffected. STEVEN LUBET: And you have situations in the past, for example, when African-American judges were first coming onto the bench, you know, litigants would say that they can't be fair in civil rights cases because they have a certain outlook on life. And, of course, that theory was rejected, and it should have been. But you can see how that might be applied to anybody, based on the outlook of the litigants. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We're going to bring another person in, here. Judge David Peeples is the presiding judge for the Fourth Administrative Judicial Region in San Antonio, Texas. He hears and assigns bias complaints for judges in his district, and he joins us now from Texas Public Radio in San Antonio. Welcome to you. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Good to be here. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So have you ever had a complaint of bias filed against you? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Yes, I've had a few over the years. They've dwindled as I've become older. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Can you give us a sense? I mean, did you - what happened? What was the complaint, and did you actually hear those cases or not? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Well, there are many, many kinds of complaints that can be lodged against a judge. For example, I've had people complain in family law cases that they didn't like some of my rulings previously in that case. And, you know, it just goes with the territory. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Complaints about rulings, as Professor Lubet said, are just not a basis for trying to remove a judge from the case. But that's what people complain about, I think, more than anything else. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Was there a case where you felt someone made a fair point, and you stepped down? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Yes, there have been some of those. I remember one a long time ago, a very troublesome lawyer filed a motion to remove me from the case, and he said that he thought I didn't like him. And there may have been some truth to that allegation, and I just decided life was too short. I'm in a big city. There are many judges here, and so I decided to let someone else hear that case, and I heard a different case that day. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Really? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Sure. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You just didn't like him? Now, but... JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Well, that's what he said. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: But did he ever come up again? I mean, can you control whose cases you hear? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Well, there's the possibility that something like that could happen again and again. It did not happen in this case. He's not practicing law anymore. But that's just an example of a case in which I thought, you know, there may be a glimmer of truth in this. I could be fair to him, but why fight it? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Does it hurt to get that accusation put at you? Because you - I mean, the job does, you know, require impartiality. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Well, it doesn't hurt when someone says I didn't like that judge's rulings. The allegation that you can't be fair, yeah, I think that hurts a little bit. But it goes with the territory. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Have you - if you stay on the case, though, when someone has made that accusation, is it hard then to hear that case when you know how they feel about you? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: I find that once you get into hearing a case, you focus on the witnesses and the exhibits and the law and what ought to be done, and you move on. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right, David Peeples, stay with us. And we've also got Professor Steve Lubet on the line. We're going to talk more about judicial bias in just a moment. If you're an attorney and you've dealt with this issue, we'd like to hear your story. Call us at 800-989-8255. The email address is talk@npr.org. More coming up. I'm Jennifer Ludden. This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Jennifer Ludden. We're talking about the issue of judicial bias today in light of the George Zimmerman case. His legal team has twice requested the judge be removed from the trial. The first Seminole Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler stepped aside after Zimmerman's lawyer alleged conflict of interest. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Now, Zimmerman's lawyer has asked that Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. be disqualified for bias. Today, we'd like to hear from lawyers. If you've handled the issue of judicial bias, what happened? Our number is 800-989-8255. And our email address is talk@npr.org. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: My guests today are Steven Lubet, co-author of the book "Judicial Conduct and Ethics," and Judge David Peeples, the presiding judge for the Fourth Administrative Judicial Region in San Antonio. And I would like to bring in a caller to start off, Tom, Tom in - whoops. There we go - Tom in Salt Lake City. Hi, there. TOM: Hi, thank you. I would not be very likely to do what George Zimmerman's attorneys are doing right now. I find that - I'm an attorney here, and I find that making a single motion to remove a judge for bias, even if the judge really is - and I've had that scenario before, where a judge really does have an actual conflict of interest, I find 99 percent of the time it's just not worth it. I'm just scratching my head a little bit about why... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Why do you say it's not worth it? TOM: Well, I feel you - the risk of making that motion frivolously can really damage your reputation as an attorney, and frankly has a potential of damaging your client's case. Where a judge may have had no bias before, after you've made the allegation, then the judge, you know, it's like asking someone not to think of a purple elephant. As soon as you make that allegation, then the judge starts to - whether they would like to believe that they would or not, they start to - it starts to percolate in their mind. TOM: And maybe there would be a bias after you make the motion, and there's just too many risk factors involved to make that kind of motion. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Well, Tom, thanks for the... TOM: You'd have to have a really egregious case of... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thanks for the call, Tom. STEVEN LUBET: A good judge shouldn't care, of course, but... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Is this David Peeples? No, sorry, is that Steven or David speaking there? STEVEN LUBET: This is Steve. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Hi. Go ahead. STEVEN LUBET: Just saying a good judge shouldn't care. You should take it in stride, as Judge Peeples obviously does, and just proceed with the case. But I was saying, in the Zimmerman case, you know, the first judge really did have a conflict of interest. And so she stepped aside for good - you know, she didn't... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We can remind people she was married to, what, a CNN analyst who was commenting on that case? STEVEN LUBET: No, I think she was a married to a partner or a former partner of the defense lawyer. So - or somebody in the prosecutor's office. But there was a, you know, a connection there that really did justify getting out of the case. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: I agree that most judges do just take it in stride and move on. I will say, though, that a lawyer who has tried to recuse a judge and failed will be on pins and needles during the rest of that case. It's a gutsy thing to do. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: But is there - yeah. Well, is there a risk, though, even if it's not the case that the judge will then not be impartial in that case, are there some other risks with the lawyer making this motion? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Well, the risk of sanctions is pretty remote, but I think the main risk is that for the rest of that trial, that lawyer will have in the back of his or her mind the failed motion to recuse. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK. Let's get one more call in here - Tom in Madison, Wisconsin. Go ahead. TOM: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I've represented a number of people in situations like this. I had a case where we were suing on behalf of a youth who was in a correctional mental health facility. And the judge that got assigned was the former administrator, the former head of the Department of Corrections. TOM: And being an excellent judge, Judge Fiedler(ph), he removed himself when we filed a motion. On the other hand, I've had - in federal court, there was a federal judge who would refuse to remove himself, even though as a legislator, he was tremendously anti-civil liberties, anti-defense bar and so forth. But to at least not make the record of trying to remove him puts you in a bad position. So sometimes you had to do, you know, a file, even though as the commentator said, you find yourself really up against it sometimes during the trial. TOM: What concerns me even more is, for example in Wisconsin right now, you may have noticed we have an allegation that one justice tried to choke the other on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the judges are refusing to recuse themselves... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: OK, I missed that bit of drama. My goodness. TOM: Yeah. And - you know, it's - we've gotten to the point where - and one of these justices, her husband sat on the board of a bank where she heard numbers of cases affecting that particular bank and never recused herself one bit. So you kind of get - you get to wonder anymore how much - and then I think of the chief - not the chief justice, but Scalia making the kind of comments he does... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Well, yeah. TOM: ...and goes to these Republican fundraisers and everything else. And... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Of course, the Supreme Court is sort of a different case there. We're going to move on. Tom... TOM: But the question is: What happened to the perception of, you know... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Perception of unbiased. All right... TOM: Lack of bias, yeah. It's used to be the... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thank you. Thank you, Tom. What about that perception, gentlemen? Steve Lubet? STEVEN LUBET: He raised a lot of issues. I think there's still a perception that judges do their best to be unbiased. There are some high-profile cases that draw a lot of attention, where judges have done some pretty outlandish things. Obviously, maintaining the appearance of impartiality is almost as important as being impartial itself. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Let's bring in Thomas Fitzpatrick. He's a lawyer and professor at the Seattle University School of Law. He helped to establish the Model Code of Judicial Conduct for the American Bar Association, and he joins us now from his office in Seattle. Welcome to you. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Oh, hello. Glad to be with you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: So you helped to kind of make the rules for what can be considered bias, right? I mean, what factors do you consider as you kind of are dealing with this and updating the rules? THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Well, the factors have primarily already been raised in your discussion, but the basic test is whether or not the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. That's not just for the person in the sense of - or the party before the court. It's whether, in a sense, reasonable people could come to the conclusion that the judge is biased. And so that's the basic test. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Then in addition, there's a bunch of specific factors that call for a judge to step aside when there is a variety of factors - some of which have already been alluded to - such as the judge has a particular bias or prejudice against a party in the case or the party's lawyer. And by the way, the party's lawyer was a new one that was added in 2007. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Why? What prompted that? THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Well, because of a feeling that one of the callers just indicated, that the judge indicated that a lot of times, there's - the judges have more knowledge about the lawyers than they certainly do about the parties. And so there's a fear that if a judge dislikes a particular lawyer, that could affect the person or entity that that lawyer is representing. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And it can be as simple as dislike? There's no other... THOMAS FITZPATRICK: No, it's still going to be the basic test of whether or not it could be reasonably questioned. And - but, you know, those are not - those are difficult propositions to put before. But the code has been expanded to include bias not only in regard to the parties to the case, but the various lawyers who represent them. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Then, in addition, you know, there are the issues that we already talked about. Does the judge have a financial interest in what could happen? Could somebody in his family have a financial interest in what happens? Does the judge have personal knowledge about what's in dispute in the case, i.e., you know, they saw the crime. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: So in that sort of situation, the judge would not be an appropriate person to try the defendant, because he has personal knowledge about what happened in that particular situation, and then whether or not the judge had ever acted as a lawyer in the proceeding before going on the bench. Those sorts of things are specifically covered in the code. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: What has been updated in recent years? Are there new things that come up that you decided to put into the code? THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Well, there have been changes - and by the way, what I want everybody to know is these codes get adopted, and then they become a basis for whether or not a judge gets disciplined and sanctioned in some way, which can include removal from the bench. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: In the last 20 years, there has been a move to further define some aspects of - that relate to bias, one of which is that judges are prohibited from belonging to discriminatory clubs - clubs that don't admit people on the basis of race, or clubs that don't admit people on the basis of gender, such as - would be like Augusta National. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: And, in addition, in the latest version of the code, we included a prohibition in regard to engaging in sexual harassment. All of those have been, in a sense, evolving with specific delineations, as do protected groups - racial, ethnic. And in the latest draft, sexual orientation was included. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Hmm. And finally, can I ask you about the difficulty that maybe elections pose? It seems that more and more judges are being elected. And I read in the ABA joint commission report that there's an effort to - you sought, quote, "sought to find a balance that accommodated the political realities of judicial selection and election, while also ensuring judicial independence and integrity." THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Yes. Well, the reason for that was prior to a case of a few years ago, which is called Republican Party of Minnesota versus White, most of these codes prohibited judges from, when they were running for office, speaking about their views in regard to disputed legal or political issues. The U.S. Supreme Court struck that down and said that is an unconstitutional impairment of the First Amendment. These people - prospective judicial candidates or judges running for reelection - have a right to give their views or announce their views on these disputed matters. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: The balance that's left after the U.S. Supreme Court decision - which is still contained in the code - is that a judge or someone running for judge cannot make a pledge or a promise as to how they will rule in a particular case or a category of cases, such as you cannot run for office and say, if you elect me, I'll never rule for the landlord in a case. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Right. But they can express views on what? THOMAS FITZPATRICK: On disputed political issues, such as, you know, I have never supported the abortion rights. That would be something that the judge could say. Now, that doesn't prohibit them from saying it. Then if an abortion case came before that particular judge, there would then have to be a decision that by making this statement, has a - would - could the judge's impartiality be reasonably questioned? JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Interesting. OK. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: But the overall - the old days of they can't say anything are gone. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Thomas Fitzpatrick is a lawyer and professor at the Seattle University School of Law, and joined us from his office in Seattle. Thank you so much. THOMAS FITZPATRICK: Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Let's squeeze in one last call, here. Charles is in Des Moines, Iowa. Hi, there. CHARLES: Hi. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: Go right ahead. CHARLES: I think the commentators who have been excellent - and Steven Lubet is certainly the number one expert on the subject from the academy. One has to take into account that if you are in a court of two or more judges, the judge has to consider whether the same accusation toward the judge who has been assigned the case might equally apply to the others, because if a judge just quickly recuses and says I'll turn it over to someone else, that is unfair to other judges who may have the same problem. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Charles, thank you for the phone call. Let me remind people that you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. David Peeples, Steven Lubet, do you want to address that issue? STEVEN LUBET: It's called the rule of necessity sometimes, that if every judge is disqualified, then no judge is disqualified. And that certainly needs to be the case if lawsuits are going to go forward. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Jennifer, let me make a point that I think we're skirting around: You made a very perceptive opening when you said there are two questions here: What is bias? And, second: who decides? And I think that the question of who decides is maybe more important than trying to define what is bias. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. So tell us how it works where you are. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: It - OK. Well, if - in Texas, and I think in more and more states, the judge who's being challenged, once the motion is filed, is frozen and cannot do anything on that case until the motion has been decided. And the judge has two choices: to step aside voluntarily or to refer the motion to the chief judge of that district, who will then hear the case himself or herself, or assign someone else to hear it. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: And so the very important point is that the challenged judge does not decide his own case. And when you've got an initial decision-maker making this decision, I think that goes a long, long way to ensuring that there's integrity and openness in the system. On appellate courts, the remainder of the court decides whether the challenged judge will sit. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. STEVEN LUBET: Yeah. That's an enlightened approach, and I strongly endorse it, and I wish all the other courts in the other states and in the federal system would follow that same procedure. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. We just have a minute left here, but an email from Chip in California: What is your guests' opinion of the case of the California judge who made a decision about our marriage equality law, and later it came out that he was gay? Steven Lubet? STEVEN LUBET: My opinion is the same as an African-American judge ruling in a civil rights case. Somebody's personal characteristics don't have anything to do with whether they can be fair. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: And, David Peeples, how often are these allegations granted? How often - what share of the cases that you deal with there does the judge - is it decided that he should not hear that case? JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: It's hard to answer, because there are so many different situations. For example, a lot of these motions are filed by prisoners who are getting ready to - say, their conviction's been affirmed, and they're getting ready to challenge by habeas corpus their consignment, and they don't want the judge who presided over their trial to hear those motions. Well, that's a pretty frivolous motion, but we get a lot of those. Lawyers... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: We just have a few seconds left, here. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: OK. Lawyers are much more discerning in deciding when to file them. It's hard to say but... JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: You know what, we're going to have to... JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: ...a lot of them are granted voluntarily. And the others, it's just case by-case. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: All right. Judge David Peeples, presiding judge for the fourth administrative judicial region in Texas, and Steven Lubet, professor of law at Northwestern University. Thanks so much to both of you. STEVEN LUBET: It's been a real pleasure. Thanks for having me. JUDGE DAVID PEEPLES: Thank you. JENNIFER LUDDEN, HOST: After a short break, David Lightman joins us. He works for McClatchy, which asked every congressman for tax returns and got back only 17. Do public officials need to disclose their tax returns? I'm Jennifer Ludden. It's TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News.

For a second time, attorneys for George Zimmerman, who is accused of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, have filed a complaint requesting that the judge presiding over his case be recused over concerns of bias. These objections raise questions about judge impartiality. Steve Lubet, law professor, Northwestern University David Peeples, presiding judge, Fourth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas Thomas Fitzpatrick, adjunct professor, Seattle University School of Law

Zum zweiten Mal haben Anwälte von George Zimmerman, der des Mordes zweiten Grades bei der Erschießung von Trayvon Martin angeklagt ist, eine Beschwerde eingereicht, in der sie die Abberufung des Richters, der seinen Fall leitet, wegen Bedenken hinsichtlich der Befangenheit beantragt. Diese Einwände werfen Fragen zur Unparteilichkeit der Richter auf. Steve Lubet, Juraprofessor, Northwestern Universität David Peeples, Vorsitzender Richter, Vierte Verwaltungsgerichtsregion von Texas Thomas Fitzpatrick, außerordentlicher Professor, Seattle Universität Rechtsschule

乔治·齐默尔曼被指控在枪杀特雷冯·马丁的事件中犯有二级谋杀罪，他的律师已经第二次提出申诉，出于偏见，要求审理案件的法官回避。这些反对意见引发了有关法官公正性的问题。史蒂夫·卢贝特，西北大学法学教授；大卫·皮尔普斯，德克萨斯州第四行政司法区首席法官；托马斯·菲茨帕特里克，西雅图大学法学院兼职教授。

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico is crippled more than a week after Hurricane Maria hit. Much of the island is without power. Food and water are scarce in some areas, and farming has been devastated. Jay Fonseca is a radio show host in San Juan. And he told us the federal response has been slow. JAY FONSECA: We hear the governor and government say that there's plenty of food. There's plenty of water. There's plenty of supplies. Well, I haven't seen them in the hands of the people. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Are people frustrated? What are people saying about the pace of the response? JAY FONSECA: People are frustrated. Right now it's raining. So usually, FEMA - what they provide real quick is those provisional rooftops, those blue rooftops. They just arrived today, more than a week after. So people that are at their houses that lost their roofs - they're receiving the rain because they don't have any roofs. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: How are people coping? What are they doing to survive? JAY FONSECA: I mean, you see the huge line at supermarkets. I mean, others are just going desperate. Someone told me something that I've never heard before - that people are cutting banana trees. And they're eating the plant - the tree, not the banana. The banana's gone. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: President Trump has come under increasing criticism. And yesterday, he hit back, accusing the mayor of the capital city, San Juan, of poor leadership. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon is the island's sole representative to Congress. And she joins us now. Good morning, Congresswoman. Good to have you back on NPR. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: Thank you. Good morning. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Good morning. You just returned from Puerto Rico on Friday. You're now in D.C. You are a Republican. And President Trump has singled you out on Twitter as being wonderful to deal with. At the same time, he tweeted that Puerto Ricans, quote, "want everything to be done for them." And he attacked, as we said, the mayor of San Juan. What's your response to that? JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: I think that people of Puerto Rico are frustrated. We've never got this kind of disaster before. So some people ventilated their frustration, like the mayor of San Juan. We convert that frustration into action, into how to help the people. I mean, this is down to saving lives. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Right. But the president seemed to be implying that after something so devastating, the people of Puerto Rico, who are U.S. citizens, we're looking for a handout. You know, for some Puerto Ricans, it feels like they're being treated as second-class citizens. Do you see - do you understand that anger? JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: Yes. Yes. But you know what? I spoke with him twice during this week and with his secretaries. I think he was referring to the mayor of San Juan's expression and statement because, I mean, he's sending... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Does the mayor not have to - have - cannot speak out about the frustration when she's dealing with such a - what she perceives to be a slow level of response? JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: Let me tell you something. Everybody's frustrated not because of the level of commitment. We're - the Air Force is there. I mean, I'm seeing the troops doing air drops of food. Everybody there is working hard. We've got a problem. The catastrophic disaster we've got - we've never got this before. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Are you satisfied with what is being done and how quickly? JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: I mean, we need more. And when President Trump called me yesterday, he said, I just authorized to have more deployment, more people there, more than 500 trucks and drivers. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: But it's been many days since Hurricane Maria hit. It's good that that's happening now, say the people there. But why did it take so long? JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: I mean, there were 4,000 people during - before the hurricane. And after the hurricane, that amount of people was 10,000. So that - now that number is going to increase more. I mean, 600 medics on Saturday, 700 beds - new beds. During this week, the U.S. Comfort is going to arrive into the island. You know what? The people of Puerto Rico is grateful. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: All right. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon is the sole representative in Congress for Puerto Rico. Thank you so very much. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON: Thank you.

Jenniffer González-Colón, Puerto Rico's representative in Congress, speaks to NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro about hurricane recovery on the island.

Jenniffer González-Colón, die Vertreterin von Puerto Rico im Kongress, spricht mit Lulu Garcia-Navarro von NPR über den Wiederaufbau nach dem Hurrikan auf der Insel.

珍妮弗·冈萨雷斯来自科隆，是波多黎各的国会代表，她向来自纳瓦罗的美国国家公共电台的露露·加西亚讲述了飓风后岛上的恢复情况。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. Shocking and callous disregard for victims, repeatedly concealed critical facts, failure to protect the children created a dangerous situation for unsuspecting boys lured and victimized repeatedly. NEAL CONAN, HOST: After an eight-month investigation, the report from the former FBI Director Louis Freeh condemns Penn State's former president, its famous football coach and two other senior officials, and it goes on to charge the board of trustees as a rubber stamp that declined to hold officials accountable, allowed the athletics department to operate under its own rules and failed to understand its legal obligation to report crimes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: After conviction on dozens of charges, Jerry Sandusky is in prison. Coach Joe Paterno died of cancer. Former athletic director Timothy Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz face criminal charges. Graham Spanier lost his job as president but remains at Penn State as a tenured faculty member. NEAL CONAN, HOST: After today's report, have your questions been answered? 800-989-8255 is our phone number. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Later in the program, John Scalzi's sci-fi comedy "Redshirts." But first, NPR sports correspondent Tom Goldman joins us from his office in Portland. Tom, always good to have you on the program today. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Sports, right, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So what did we learn from this report that we did not know already? TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: You know, that's a really good question. I'm not sure if we learned that much. You know, we learned the depth of it. We got a lot of evidence, and this connects a lot of dots. But, you know, there was talk back when this scandal broke late last year that there was enabling, that there were turned heads, that there were people protecting Jerry Sandusky and bad behavior by powerful people at Penn State. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Louis Freeh and his investigative team, after more than 430 interviews and 3.5 million emails and other documents analyzed, have provided, you know, have, as I said, connected those dots. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And some of those emails were leaked a couple of weeks ago. They are particularly damning. It seemingly does not allow any of those four officials that were named to say they did not know about the allegations in 2001, and Freeh comes to the conclusion they also knew about the incident in 1998. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, that's right, you know, and, you know, the Paterno family was on a bit of an offensive this week and came out saying these leaks were awful, and they never got a chance to respond. Certainly Joe Paterno didn't because, as you said, he died in January. And they said these emails were taken out of context. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: But Louis Freeh kind of put that to rest. He said, you know, there were these - this email traffic between Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant, and then he became a football assistant. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And there were these emails, and there was discussion what to do, and they were ready to take it to authorities. And apparently, and this is, you know, completely damning to Joe Paterno, and I'll quote what Mr. Freeh said: "Based on the evidence, the only known intervening factor between the decision made on February 25th, 2001 by Spanier, Curley and Schultz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley." NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there is also the conclusion that by failing to do anything about Sandusky, by allowing him to retire and become a professor emeritus and still have access to the athletic department, to the facilities there and also, of course, to the football program, they gave him the currency, as they described it in this report, to continue to lure other boys to be victims. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, yeah. You know, it was 14 years, as Mr. Freeh said. It was from '98 to 2011, the inaction, the - you know, the concealing of information, the not going to authorities that made it possible for Jerry Sandusky to continue. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is also the broader questions. Those are those four individuals. Then there are broader questions about the university itself, notes a football program that did not fully participate in or opted out of some university programs, including Clery Act compliance. This is a federal law that requires colleges and universities to collect data on campus crime and to report crimes to police. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, in fact on the day Sandusky was arrested, Penn State's Clery Act implementation plan was still in draft form. And Graham Spanier said that he and the board of trustees never had a discussion about the Clery Act until November 2011. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: So yes, even though it was rather an odd moment. I mentioned the offensive by the Paterno family, they released a letter yesterday or actually an op-ed that he had penned just a month before he had died, defending the football program and saying, you know, we were not a football factory, and we did not run amuck, and all the good that I've done over 50 years, and we can't forget that. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Well, you know, it appears the football program and looking away and officials, did happen - and that may be something that the NCAA has to look at now. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'll have to see about that. The Clery Act, by the way, passed in 1990. It's not as if this was a recent thing. There is also a culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community. And that gets back to this idea that the trustees, Penn State University, allowed this athletics department - meaning, primarily, its football program - to run as a separate fiefdom under its own rules. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the fascinating things that Mr. Freeh pointed out today in his press conference was what he said about the janitor who witnessed what Freeh called probably the most despicable, the harshest - I can't remember the term exactly that he used - rape by Jerry Sandusky of a young boy in the football facilities in 2000 and didn't report it. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And he didn't report it because he was afraid he'd be fired. And he talked about, you know, how they will circle around Sandusky the way they circle around the president of the United States. And Mr. Freeh said, with all due respect to janitors, if that's the culture at the bottom, imagine what was going on at the top. NEAL CONAN, HOST: You mention the Paterno family, they issued a statement today. In part it reads: Joe Paterno wasn't perfect, he made mistakes, and he regretted them. He's still the only leader to step forward and say that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he'd done more. NEAL CONAN, HOST: To think, however, that he would have protected Jerry Sandusky to avoid bad publicity is simply not realistic. It goes on to say Joe Paterno never interfered with any investigation. He immediately and accurately reported the incident he was told about in 2001. NEAL CONAN, HOST: To make that statement in - and after this report suggests they did not read the report. I mean, that's directly contradicted by Louis Freeh's report. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: It is, yeah. I mean, they're saying that they, you know, believe that the report's recounting of the events or how they, the family, see them. You know, they're still clinging to a belief, a strong belief, about Joe Paterno and what he did and didn't know about Jerry Sandusky. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And they said: We have said from the beginning that Joe Paterno did not know Jerry Sandusky was a child predator. Joe Paterno's grand jury testimony, which hasn't been publicly talked about that much, contradicts that. Joe Paterno said to a grand jury, when he was talking about the Mike McQueary witnessed incident, he said that Mike McQueary told him, Joe Paterno, that Sandusky was doing something with a youngster - it was a sexual nature. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: So that right there says Joe Paterno had to know something that was going on with Jerry Sandusky as a child predator. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is now the recommendations, also, within this lengthy report after this eight-month investigation, and a lot of people have called for Penn State to clean house. That doesn't come up. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, I mean, you know, kind of the closest they get to that is, and I'm quoting here, "to deeply examine the Penn State to reinforced university commitment to protect children, create accountability, transparency." They're going to - you know, one of the recommendations, "review organizational structure to make more efficient the roles of the president and the senior VP" and so on. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, I mean, Neal, it's still early. This thing was released hours ago. The board of trustees, as a matter of fact, is going to be speaking in about 15 minutes reacting to it. So there's still a lot of reacting. There's still a lot to plow through, a 267-page report, and for people to react and for things to actually change, and for broken things within Penn State to be fixed. NEAL CONAN, HOST: As we mentioned, two of those officials named continue to face charges. Their case has not gone to trial as yet. But there is an allegation that the others may have been involved in violations of the Clery Act, which is a federal law. There's also requirements under Pennsylvania state law to report crimes against children. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, and questions whether Graham Spanier will be charged, now, with crimes, as well. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so as this moves forward, clearly it seems that there's also going to be civil cases, as the victims in this horrible story - try to go to civil court to get compensation. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, certainly you're hearing - you know, you're hearing the victims' lawyers react very strongly, and whether that's, you know... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And we'll hear from one of them in a few minutes. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, a preemptive fire an indication of these civil cases, but that has been talked about a lot, yeah. This report today is not good news for a number of people. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And it's important to say this was a report commissioned by the university. This is their in-house report. This is their internal finding. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: By the board of trustees and commissioned by the board of trustees, and it was going to be interesting to see how Mr. Freeh responded to that and what he had to say about the board of trustees. You know, he didn't come down on them like he came down on those four power figures that we talked about, and he said that the board of trustees did not know about the incidents in 1998 and 2001 the way those four men did. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: But he said, you know, the board of trustees was involved in creating a culture where this kind of stuff could happen, could go on. And so, you know, it's still early. As I said, the board of trustees is going to be speaking publicly for the first time. So we still don't know how they're going to be - how they're going to forward, whether heads will roll. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And as you mentioned, the NCAA, which always talks about lack of institutional control, this sounds like the definition of lack of institutional control. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: It certainly does, and the NCAA constitution includes a provision that members adhere to ethical conduct at all times. And so if the NCAA takes some sort of action, it probably would be along those lines. Institutional control often has to do with, you know, recruiting violations and so on. This I think will focus on that whole idea of ethical conduct. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the results of the internal Penn State investigation into the Sandusky sex scandal. After today's report, have your questions been answered? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. The email address is talk@npr.org. NPR sports correspondent Tom Goldman is with us. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. We're talking about the results of an internal investigation into what went wrong at Penn State during at least 14 years of sexual child abuse by Jerry Sandusky. Today's report was scathing. As we heard, the internal investigation blames former head coach Joe Paterno and several top officials of covering up allegations in an attempt to avoid bad publicity. NEAL CONAN, HOST: As you can imagine, reaction has been fierce and deeply divided. On Penn State's Facebook page, Joey Schwartz(ph) wrote: It makes no sense discussing what happened in the past and what emails were sent. Complaining about the past does not make for a strong future. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sean MacPharlan(ph) disagreed: Time to swallow your pride and recognize that Jo-Pa made very grave mistakes, and even he probably didn't understand the gravity of them at the time. This is undeniable proof that not only did he fail to act, but he influenced the decision to report Sandusky to the authorities. NEAL CONAN, HOST: More reaction in a moment. We'll also talk with a lawyer of the victims, as well as a Penn State alum. Tom Goldman is our guest, NPR sports correspondent. He's been poring over the pages of the report all morning. After today's report, have your questions been answered? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeff Anderson is a trial lawyer who represents two men who claim sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky. They were not part of the criminal trial. One of those men, known as John Doe A, has filed a civil suit against Sandusky. Jeff Anderson joins us from the studios of Minnesota Public Radio, and good of you to be with us today. JEFF ANDERSON: Good to be with you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And does this report answer your questions? JEFF ANDERSON: Well, it certainly reveals to all of us in some much greater detail how excruciatingly ugly the scenario has been at Penn State. And anybody that reads it already knew a lot about it, but already know this now, gives us much more detail. JEFF ANDERSON: The problem with it, however, as good as Freeh's investigation was, is that the board empowered him only to investigate it after 1998. And we already know there were serious lapses from 1977 to 1998. So we're deeply disappointed that the board did not empower a broader and a deeper report than what has been presented. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So we - the first incident reported at Penn State to the authorities that they were aware of, at least according to the Freeh report, was 1998. You're saying there were earlier allegations that they should have known about, too? JEFF ANDERSON: We sure have indications that there were knowledge of Sandusky's inappropriate relationships long before '98, and we're disappointed we didn't get more about that because this report deals with 1998 to 2011. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Have you spoken with your clients today? JEFF ANDERSON: We have, and it's a mixed feeling. They feel like there's some validation in their courage in having come forward that now the truth is known. But there's also a sense of disappointment that more of it isn't being known and told. And so for that, I think it's a mixed set of feelings that they are feeling. JEFF ANDERSON: But every day, more is known about how the kids were failed to be protected in the past and that they know they've done something about that. I think they are empowered, and the healing has really been assisted by that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There is one of your clients who has filed a civil suit. What's the status of that? JEFF ANDERSON: He did. He filed last year, and as soon as the suit got filed, the courts put the case on hold and prevented us from moving forward with our investigation and discovery until after the Sandusky criminal trial. Now that that has concluded, we're seeking to start that back up, and it's our hope and intention to get into our investigation, put these witnesses under oath and dig deeper than Louis Freeh was able to dig and dig wider than he was given the power to do. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And is the suit filed against Penn State? Is it filed against the estate of Joe Paterno? JEFF ANDERSON: The suit is filed against Penn State, Second Mile and Sandusky himself. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Second Mile was the foundation that Jerry Sandusky started. JEFF ANDERSON: That's right. He started it in 1977 and used it as a vehicle to access many kids and his position as that icon at Penn State. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you've represented victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, as well. I wonder: Do you see similarities? JEFF ANDERSON: Well, I've been working with survivors involved in abuse by clerics across the country. And what we see in this report and at Penn State mirrors, identically, the culture of arrogance and denial that we've seen in the diocese across the country now for over 29 years. JEFF ANDERSON: And sadly so, it is really, strikingly similar. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeff Anderson, thanks very much for your time today, we appreciate it. JEFF ANDERSON: You're very welcome. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who represents two of Sandusky's alleged victims who were not part of the criminal trial, one of whom has filed a civil suit. He joined us from Minnesota Public Radio in St. Paul. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tom Goldman is still with us. Let's see if we can get a caller in on the conversation. This is Rick(ph), and Rick's with us from Sarasota in Florida. RICK: Hey, how's it going? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Good, thanks. RICK: Thanks for taking my call. My primary point is I am really surprised Graham Spanier is a paid member of the faculty at Penn State still, and I think he ought to be sacked immediately. I graduated there in 1990. My brother went there. I'm from Western Pennsylvania. We all go there. And this in no way reflects the nature of people of Western Pennsylvania, which makes it all the more disturbing because the fact that - we all go there. Everybody goes to Penn State - almost everybody. RICK: And for this to have happened in our school is so - it - you know, I'm disgusted. I'm disgusted that it happened, I'm disgusted to have - you know, that Graham Spanier's still there; that Joe Paterno, who these people - I'm not a big sports fan, but who - you know, when I was there, they were cutting programs and combining majors to build an $86 million basketball facility, and they justified that because the money came from PepsiCo. RICK: You know, but they've become too much of a money machine like so many universities, and they're so preoccupied with their finances and with the things they think they can sell, which football was primary - is maybe still a primary example, that academics fall aside, and the safety of the kids of the region apparently fall aside, too. RICK: And if there's any reason to get that money out of those campuses, and, you know, they don't need the money if they don't have those big programs. If you don't have big multi-million-dollar sports programs all over the place, you don't need the money to pay for them. So why don't we just get rid of both? That's my opinion. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rick, thanks very much for the phone call, appreciate it. RICK: Sure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mr. Spanier, again, lost his job as president. He's a tenured professor at Penn State University so continues as a faculty member. And he's not teaching currently at Penn State, but Tom Goldman, Rick opens up a big question about the role of big-time sports programs, and it's certainly not just at Penn State. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Boy oh boy. Throw a rock or throw a stone anywhere in the country, and you see the primacy of sport, and certainly of football. So many universities, now obviously we're not going to start accusing people of having, you know, a sordid situation like what happened at Penn State, but you can certainly see, in that kind of environment, the deification of coaches. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And, you know, the coaches often are the highest paid people on campus, a lot of these big universities with big programs. And so, you know, I think that's kind of a - one of the global messages that can come out of this, that can come out of this for all people and for even the people who aren't - who weren't directly involved. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: You know, think about your reverence for your teams and your programs; and think about, you know, all the alums out there who would do anything for old State U kind of thing. I think, you know, this is a very sobering thing, and it probably should prompt a lot of introspection at all levels. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Jay(ph), and Jay's on the line with us from Jacksonville. JAY: Good afternoon. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. JAY: I wanted to talk about the culture of silence that exists to protect these types of institutions. Something similar happened to FAMU, where people were reporting about violence that was happening to young people, and instead of going to the police, they just stopped going to the person ahead of them. JAY: And that's a disturbing trend. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's Florida A&M University, the hazing incident where the marching band member was beaten to death. JAY: Yeah, and I think it's a very similar thing that the culture, this allows them to develop at those schools. It's a challenge, and people don't feel the need to go beyond just saying something to their boss. You know, if I see a child being hurt, I'm going to the police. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the marching band, it should be pointed out, at Florida A&M, is a major institution there, and Tom Goldman, in a way a program that was like the Penn State football program - almost bigger than the university. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Yeah, and, you know, I think we can even go even farther, beyond sports programs and schools. Corporations, you know, this whole idea of acting in the best interest of the thing rather than remembering that the thing is made up of human beings and fallible human beings and, you know, people do so much to uphold the goodness, the saintliness of that corporation, of that school. You know, Mr. Freeh, today, talked about - someone asked him, why? Why did these guys do this? Why if there was this, you know, concealing of information that people are calling a cover-up? Why? TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: And he said, they were worried about bad publicity. And bad publicity, you know, it's a - that's a powerful thing to try and avoid that, and it applies at all levels. And so, you know, it seems like, my God, that's an absurd reason to let all these things happen. But it's very important when the thing gets so big and there's so much money involved. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jay, thanks very much for the call. JAY: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Gary Levitt's a graduate of Penn State. He's spokesperson for Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a group of Penn State alumni and students calling for the resignation of the Penn State board of trustees, and he joins us now by phone from Delray Beach in Florida. And good of you to be with us today. GARY LEVITT: Oh, thank you. Thank you for having me. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I know your organization put out a checklist of issues you wanted addressed by Louis Freeh in his report. Were your questions answered? GARY LEVITT: No. We are very, very disappointed in the Freeh report. It's heavy on supposition and opinion, but very light on facts and evidence. We had hoped that this would be a kind of in-depth review of the whole situation that would put things to rest. But they never interviewed key people, including Coach Paterno, who was available and eager to talk with him. GARY LEVITT: And, you know, according to the report itself, Dr. Spanier and the board of trustees had never even discussed implementation of the 1990 Clery Act, the federal law regarding child abuse. Twenty-one years later after the act took effect, Penn State's implementation of that plan was still in draft form. And, you know, it's clear who should be blamed for that: the board of trustees who are responsible for oversight and the president. GARY LEVITT: But Coach Paterno, I knew - I've known Coach Paterno since he was an assistant coach. Coach Paterno ran a program for 46 years, by the rule book. That was his nature, and that was his commitment. And the - when he was faced with something that was outside of his purview - it didn't involve one of his players. It was not an existing coach, but a tenured professor who used to be a coach. GARY LEVITT: He didn't know - he said, I didn't know exactly how to handle it, and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way. And with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would have done more. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I hear that, but Joe Paterno, as you know, was more than just an employee at Penn State. He was the face of that university. He was the best known and most important man on that campus. GARY LEVITT: As I also know about Joe Paterno, is that the idea that he would do anything to avoid bad publicity for his program is laughable to people who knew him. He's famously quoted as saying publicity is only a poison if you swallow it. He had no concern whatsoever with that. He was far, far more concerned with turning out - turning student athletes into successful human beings, successful people. He was a teacher first. GARY LEVITT: And he always put the university ahead of the football program. That's one of the big misconceptions that keeps getting repeated here. And Judge Freeh said, you know, they did this to avoid bad publicity. That - I don't know about Graham Spanier. I don't know Tim Curley that well. I know Coach Paterno, and that's just nonsense. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is Gary Levitt, spokesperson for Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And again, going back to the - Coach Paterno's grand jury testimony that Tom Goldman mentioned earlier, that he was told in 2001 that this was an incident of a sexual nature. GARY LEVITT: Yes. He was told vaguely, apparently, both according to Mike McQueary and to himself, that this was - he was told a very, very vague and brief description. He responded by saying, you have to take this to the people who run this place. And he called them, and he turned it over to them, and he assumed that it would be handled properly. GARY LEVITT: Don't forget, with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what Jerry Sandusky was all about, you know, you can say, well, he should have known that. But Jerry Sandusky was a revered figure in Centre County, Pennsylvania. His reputation among many people was greater than Joe Paterno's. His charity was a national example. George Walker Bush, you know, named him one of the 1,000 lights of... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Points of Light, yeah. GARY LEVITT: Yeah. You know, in hindsight, when you look back on this and you say, well, you had a predator there and you didn't do anything about it. But Jerry Sandusky wasn't considered a predator until we all found out about it when he was arrested and Sara Ganim over at the Harrisburg paper had written some things on it. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Can I ask Gary a question, Neal? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Go ahead, please. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Hi, Gary. GARY LEVITT: Hi. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Tom Goldman here. If you're testifying to a grand jury, if you know that someone is doing something with a youngster, in a shower, of a sexual nature, you know, doesn't that tell you something? You ask anyone, any kind of - any person, and certainly a strong person like the Joe Paterno you're describing, you know, who molded men over a half century... GARY LEVITT: Yes. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: ...a phone call? I mean... GARY LEVITT: Well, listen... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And allow that person access to that shower for another 10 years. GARY LEVITT: Well, that was his decision. But in any case, he did not - keep in mind, Joe Paterno did not see anything. He was told by a graduate assistant that the graduate assistant had seen something of some kind of nature and he did - listen, I teach in middle school. I've got a procedure to follow. If somebody tells me something, that a child's being abused or whatever, I know exactly who to call and what to do, and there's a procedure. GARY LEVITT: I am not supposed to go immediately to the police and say, well, he said this about that. Joe Paterno didn't see anything. He was told something. And if he wanted to cover it up for any possible reason, he could have done that right then and there. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Gary Levitt, you will disagree with Louis Free and the report that was issued today, but thank you for your time today. GARY LEVITT: I surely do disagree with him. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Gary Levitt, the spokesperson for Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, with us from Delray Beach in Florida. Our thanks also go to Tom Goldman, NPR's sports correspondent in Portland Oregon. Tom, thank you very much. TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: You're welcome, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Up next: The rebellion of the doomed extras on a starship's away team. John Scalzi joins us to talk about his new bestseller "Redshirts." This is NPR News.

The internal investigation into the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State University finds that head coach Joe Paterno and other top officials "failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." The report offers recommendations on how to detect and prevent future abuse on campus. Tom Goldman, sports correspondent, NPR Jeff Anderson, attorney for two alleged Jerry Sandusky victims who were not part of the criminal trial Gary Levitt, spokesperson, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship

Die interne Untersuchung des Skandals um sexuellen Missbrauch von Kindern an der Universität Penn State ergab, dass Cheftrainer Joe Paterno und andere hochrangige Beamte \"über ein Jahrzehnt lang nicht vor einem sexuellen Missbrauchstäter schützen konnten, der Kindern schadet\". Der Bericht bietet Empfehlungen, wie Missbrauch auf dem Campus in Zukunft erkannt und verhindert werden kann. Tom Goldman, Sportkorrespondent, NPR Jeff Anderson, Anwalt für zwei mutmaßliche Jerry Sandusky-Opfer, die nicht am Strafprozess beteiligt waren Gary Levitt, Sprecher von Penn Staters für verantwortliche Verwaltung

对宾夕法尼亚州立大学儿童性侵丑闻的内部调查发现，主教练乔·帕特诺和其他高级官员“在超过10年的时间里未能保护儿童免受一名儿童性侵者的伤害。”报告就如何发现和防止未来校园里的虐待行为提出了建议。汤姆·高曼，体育记者，美国全国公共广播电台的杰夫·安德森，两名指控杰里·桑达斯基受害者的律师，他们没有参与刑事审判。加里·莱维特，宾夕法尼亚州立大学负责管理的发言人。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: Japan is preparing for imperial pageantry - the sort that hasn't been seen in decades. Emperor Akihito is 85. He's going to abdicate the throne on Thursday, and his son will take his place. It is the first abdication in Japan in more than two centuries. And as NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports from Tokyo, it raises questions about the country's ancient imperial system. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Emperor Akihito was born in 1933, two years after Japan invaded Manchuria in a prelude to World War II. Japan fought that war in the name of Akihito's father, Emperor Hirohito. Mototsugu Akashi was a school classmate of the young Crown Prince Akihito. He says that Akihito was being groomed to become a tough military leader, but his wartime experiences turned him into a pacifist. MOTOTSUGU AKASHI: (Through interpreter) That time produced in him strong feelings against war and its chaos. You could call it a hatred of war. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Another influence was his junior high school teacher Elizabeth Vining, a Quaker from Philadelphia. Masao Oda was another of Akihito's classmates. He remembers how Ms. Vining gave all her students English names. MASAO ODA: I was Eric. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: And Akihito was Jimmy. But Akihito, he says, wasn't having it. MASAO ODA: So he stood up and rejected this name given by Mrs. Vining. Jimmy - I'm not a Jimmy. I'm the crown prince. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Akihito became emperor in 1989, following his father's death. Akihito carved out a role for himself that included consoling victims of disasters, such as the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown. He also expressed remorse for Japan's wartime aggression. Then, in 2016, Akihito addressed the nation in a televised message. EMPEROR AKIHITO: (Speaking Japanese). ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: "When I consider that my fitness level is gradually declining," he said, "I'm worried that it may become difficult for me to carry out my duties as the symbol of the state with my whole being, as I've done until now." Akihito wanted to abdicate, and he implied that a modern emperor ought to be able to do that. KOICHI NAKANO: What he sought to do is to really bring the Japanese imperial system to a soft landing, as it were. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Koichi Nakano is a political scientist at Sophia University in Tokyo. KOICHI NAKANO: To turn a new page from the wartime militarist past in which his father, the then-emperor, was really the divine figure for which so many Japanese died and killed. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: In 1947, Japan's U.S.-drafted post-war constitution reduced Hirohito to a powerless figurehead. It took sovereignty from the emperor and gave it to the people in order to prevent a return to militarism. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Nakano notes that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ruling party would like to turn the clock back, restoring some power both to the emperor and the military. And this, he says, has led to a simmering tension between the monarchy and the government. Akihito, he says... KOICHI NAKANO: Has, in some ways, become a surprising sort of democrat, a surprising pacifist, you know, who is not necessarily feeling comfortable with the government of the day. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Japanese law still says that the emperor rules for life. Japan's parliament gave Akihito a one-off exemption, so the issue of whether future emperors can abdicate or not remains unsettled. Takeshi Hara, a political scientist at the Open University of Japan in Yokohama, argues that another big problem is that discussing the role of the emperor in public remains a taboo in Japan. TAKESHI HARA: (Through interpreter) Even now, people still welcome the emperor like a living god. The emperor and empress try hard to talk to people, but people are not ready to talk to them as human beings. ANTHONY KUHN, BYLINE: Meanwhile, the imperial family is running low on male heirs to the throne, so Japan must now debate whether or not to have empresses. Throughout its history, it's had eight of them so far. Anthony Kuhn, NPR News, Tokyo.

Japan's Emperor Akihito will abdicate the throne on Tuesday at 85. Even as the populace celebrates Akihito's pacifist legacy, the world's oldest continuous monarchy struggles to enter the modern age.

Japans Kaiser Akihito wird am Dienstag im Alter von 85 Jahren auf den Thron verzichten. Während die Bevölkerung Akihitos pazifistisches Erbe feiert, kämpft die älteste ununterbrochene Monarchie der Welt um den Eintritt in die Moderne.

周二，日本明仁天皇将以85岁高龄退位。即使是在民众庆祝明仁的和平主义遗产时，这个世界上最古老的连续君主制国家也在为融入现代而努力。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. Earlier this year, Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a television interviewer in Egypt that she would not look to the U.S. Constitution as a model if she were drafting one today. JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Justice Ginsburg's words come at the same time that an article in the New York Times cited research which shows the U.S. Constitution in rapid decline as the democratic world's model of choice. No one argues that the world's first constitution stands perfect as written. It's been changed more than two dozen times to include the Bill of Rights, to eliminate slavery and ensure due process of law and women's suffrage. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What parts might new democracies usefully borrow or avoid? Please note this is a rebroadcast. We're not able to take any new calls on the program today. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, the great director Mike Nichols, who's on Broadway with "Death of a Salesman," but first Justice Ginsburg specifically commended South Africa's constitution. Christina Murray helped frame that document, along with Kenya's constitution. She's here in Washington as a visiting senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and joins us here in Studio 3A. Welcome to TALK OF THE NATION. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And did you look at the U.S. Constitution? CHRISTINA MURRAY: We looked at the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I've been a little bit surprised by the kind of reaction that Justice Ginsburg's comments aroused because I think she's been partially misunderstood. I'm sure she knows that there's seldom a constitution-making process in the democratic world that isn't informed by the fundamental principles that inform the U.S. Constitution. CHRISTINA MURRAY: So I think that the U.S. Constitution's influence is still very much there but just in a slightly different way to the way one might expect. NEAL CONAN, HOST: For example, different? CHRISTINA MURRAY: Well, for example, first, I think, democratic constitutions want to restrain power - we learned that, to a large extent, from the U.S. - have bills of rights - we learned that largely from the U.S. - independent courts, we learned that from the U.S. CHRISTINA MURRAY: But then when we think of the Bill of Rights, we expect bills of rights nowadays to address a whole lot of different problems to those that were - that concerned the framers of the U.S. Constitution. And I think bills of rights nowadays perhaps start by looking at the international consensus, really, on human rights. CHRISTINA MURRAY: So would always start by looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenants on political and civil rights, social and economic rights, and so on, and then would start looking at solving the kind of problems the particular country needs to address. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, every country is particular, and each has its own peculiarities, but in terms of rights, you're talking about, obviously, those that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and in terms of other constitutions, other more recent constitutions. I think Adam Liptak in the New York Times said the U.S. Constitution is parsimonious. CHRISTINA MURRAY: That's a fair description, and I can't remember exactly how many rights the South African Bill of Rights includes, but it's certainly sort of 20 or more. The Kenyan constitution, which is one - not the most - of the most recent constitutions in Africa, probably has 30-odd rights. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Now, what are all those new rights? I think rights particularly that respond, say, to the South African concern, the Kenyan concern, an experience of secretive, authoritarian government. So both the Kenyan and South African constitutions have a right to access to information, a right to fair administrative action. And many of the other rights are speaking to particular domestic concerns. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there is also, as you look at these concerns, there's difference in structure, as well. Yes, a president in South Africa, but a president as head of state and not as the chief executive. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Well, more complicated in South Africa, if I can add to that, a president who is in fact a kind of prime minister because he's the chief executive officer in our parliamentary system. So South Africa has a parliamentary system. Why? An interesting question, to which I don't really know the answer. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, there was a British tradition. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Exactly. That's what I was going to suggest, that in many cases, constitution-makers move not very far from the institutions that they're most familiar with. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And in this case, it was the tradition of Britain, and that's why you see parliamentary systems, perhaps, as in Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, places like that. CHRISTINA MURRAY: And in the Commonwealth, yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And throughout the British Commonwealth. CHRISTINA MURRAY: But just to strike a very different note, one of the moments that I found rather extraordinary in the Kenyan constitution-making process is once the very, very difficult problem of what type of system of government Kenya should adopt was resolved, the politicians instructed us to draft a presidential system U.S.-style. CHRISTINA MURRAY: So it came at an interesting moment, when there was something of a deadlock between the executive and Congress, but what was emphasized was it must be a presidential system not like their past one - which concentrated power in an extraordinary way on the president - but like the U.S. one, with adequate checks and balances. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Checks and balances, of course, at the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. Let's bring another voice into the conversation, Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, currently a visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School. His teaching focuses on constitutional law and history. Nice to have you back on the program. AKHIL REED AMAR: Thanks for having me, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you recently described, say some of the some of the concerns, as you look at the declining influence of the United States Constitution, are overlooking the fact that the United States Constitution is, as you describe it, the hinge of modern history. AKHIL REED AMAR: Yes. I think we should declare victory and go home. So we shouldn't be too disheartened. I - there was so much wisdom in the previous commentary. Each country has its own traditions and institutions and history and specific needs to address. AKHIL REED AMAR: Pulling the camera way back, very big-picture, instead of just focusing on variations among democratic constitutions and democratic societies and the ways in which some of them - the new democracies are perhaps not mimicking the United States all the way down, the big picture is that we have more democracies than ever before, more constitutional democracies. AKHIL REED AMAR: And in that deep sense, the world is becoming more American. Before the United States Constitution, before 1787, '88, the year that I call the hinge of human history, for the previous millennia of recorded history, democracy existed in very few places in the planet, and where it did exist, small little city-states, in Greece and pre-imperial Rome, where people met face-to-face, they had a common religion, a common culture, a common language, and then the United States Constitution, and they blinked out. And they didn't really survive. AKHIL REED AMAR: And you look at the planet in 1787, and despotism generally reigns. And then in this year that changed everything, the hinge of human history, the United States, the people of the United States put a constitution to a vote up and down a continent. AKHIL REED AMAR: Ordinary people got to vote on how they and their posterity would be governed. It never before happened in world history. And not in a small place, but again, up and down a continent, different religious traditions, different languages, different time zones and climatic zones, truly extraordinary. AKHIL REED AMAR: And we've made it work, by and large. It's gotten better with abolition of - a Bill of Rights and abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, abolition of poll taxes. And the world has followed in that tradition. We proved to the world that democracy could work, that you could have a written constitution. You could have judicial review, which many of the new countries are emulating, and they're becoming more American. And if they have their own variations of that, great. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Judicial review actually not specifically in the Constitution. AKHIL REED AMAR: Not in so many words. You mentioned earlier checks and balances, not in so many words. Neither are the phrases separation of powers, rule of law, federalism. The very phrase Bill of Rights isn't in our document. But all these things are there. So is the right to travel. So was proof beyond reasonable doubt. AKHIL REED AMAR: And so sometimes, when certain people are just trying to measure how much language overlap there is, this linguistic overlap, they're missing that a major portion of our system is based on things that are clearly part of our regime, but maybe not in so many words. AKHIL REED AMAR: We have a very robust tradition of un-enumerated rights, including privacy and several of the others that I just mentioned. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's bring another voice into the conversation, and after the break, we'll get to the constitutional scholars in our audience, as well. The number: 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. But Roger Pilon is with us here in the studio, vice president for legal affairs at the CATO Institute. Nice of you to come in today. ROGER PILON: Thank you. Good to be with you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the U.S. as a constitutional model, its specific influence declining. There are principles, and it was interesting to hear Christina Murray talk about a limited government. ROGER PILON: Yes. And I should note, before we go any further, Neal, that the piece by Adam Liptak in the New York Times made the point that this is a phenomenon, declining influence of the U.S. Constitution, that pretty much tracks over the last quarter-century. Prior to that, the Constitution was a model for many democracies around the world. ROGER PILON: So what has changed? Well, I think that Christina put her finger on it: There has been a much greater emphasis in other countries about these new kinds of social and economic rights, entitlements as we think of them, rights to education, to housing, to health care, to - as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights puts it in Article 24 - periodic holidays with pay. ROGER PILON: Now, we don't find any of those kinds of rights in our Constitution, and there's a good reason for that, namely that our Constitution was written in the context of just having overthrown, a few years before that, an oppressive government under King George III. ROGER PILON: And so our framers were extremely interested in securing a limited government, a government of limited powers, and therefore they set about going about doing that in all the checks and balances we're familiar with. ROGER PILON: In fact, they didn't even include a bill of rights, and it's interesting to focus on why it is that they didn't. The reason was because we have, in principle, an infinite number of rights. ROGER PILON: Christina was mentioning the number of rights in her remarks. Well, when you think about it, and you ask how many rights are there, and you start to see how would you go about answering that, and you realize wait a minute, there are an infinite number of rights, or there is only one right, the right to be free. ROGER PILON: And so they didn't even think about a Bill of Rights. They thought simply about limiting power, and where there is no power, there is by definition a right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the United States Constitution as a model. You just heard Roger Pilon of the CATO Institute. Akhil Amar is with us from Yale and Harvard, also Christina Murray, who helped draft the constitutions of South African and Kenya. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. We're talking about what the U.S. Constitution has to offer new democracies as a model. This after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians look to other countries' constitutions for inspiration. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Her comments, as you can imagine, set off some intense debate. Call and tell us what parts of the U.S. Constitution might new democracies usefully borrow or avoid. Our guests: Christina Murray, a visiting senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, professor of constitutional law at the University of Cape Town in South Africa; Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, currently visiting professor of law at Harvard; and Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the CATO Institute. Our guests: Christina Murray, we'll get to the phones in just a minute. One of the key elements of the U.S. Constitution was to avoid monarchy, to avoid the concentration of power in one man's hands. One man, at the time, was quite seriously the concern. Is that something that - as you look at other constitutions, that element has to be paramount? CHRISTINA MURRAY: I think that element is paramount, yes. And, of course, much of my experience is in Africa, and there, Africans have recently seen not monarchs - although there are monarchies in Africa - but presidents, usually referred to popularly as imperial presidents. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Or presidents for life. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Well, imperial presidents for life, and thereafter, they hope. And so one of the sort of central tasks of constitution-making in Africa - or when civil society engages with constitution-making - is to work out ways of limiting that power. And they do it in a number of ways: the American checks and balances I referred to, but also trying to devolve power to local communities, and I think by these expanded bills of rights - and trying to work out ways of making independent judiciaries. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can get some callers in on the conversation. Pat's(ph) with us from Three Lakes in Wisconsin. PAT: Thank you for taking my call. I have a real quick comment. I think that the Constitution of the United States would be a great template for any, any, any democracy trying to establish themselves. I would only do one thing: In the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, I would say in order to ensure the direct separation of church and state, and then follow through with the rest of the Establishment Clause. Otherwise, we've got a great document, one of the greatest ever written by men. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I think everybody would agree one of the great documents written by men. And Akhil Amar, should there be specificity on separation of church and state? AKHIL REED AMAR: I'd want to hear a lot more about what exactly that means. It means different things to different folks. For example, we have a separation of powers in the United States in which not only are members of the Executive Branch not automatically in the legislature or vice versa, you cannot be a congressperson and a Cabinet officer simultaneously. We call that separation of powers. AKHIL REED AMAR: If you took a certain view of separation of church and state, you would say, well, you can't be both a religious - say, a priest or a pastor and also hold government office. That's a strong anti-clerical view of separation. Thomas Jefferson actually, at his worst moments, came close to that. That's not a view that I would particularly like, that kind of ultra-strict separation. I think that would end up actually being a kind of discrimination against people of faith. AKHIL REED AMAR: So I prefer to think about the basic idea of religion as religious liberty and equality - not a preference for religion, but not a discrimination against people of faith, either. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Roger Pilon, the immediate concern was the establishment of a state religion like the Church of England, no? ROGER PILON: Yes. And it's interesting that the First Amendment applied only against the federal government, and that was true up until we got the Civil War Amendments. Prior to that, we had state establishment of churches in this country as late as 1836 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So it was only over time that we came to appreciate some of the full implications of the principles that were set forth first in the Declaration of Independence and then in the Constitution. ROGER PILON: And so when we look at the evolution of our own Constitution, we have to realize that there was something of a learning experience in that. But the dominant theme throughout was a concern about overweening power. That has been a concern throughout our history, but there was a great shift, and that was during the Progressive Era, when there was a fundamental change in the climate of ideas and progressives stopped thinking of government as a necessary evil, started thinking of it as an engine of good, an instrument through which to solve all kinds of problems. ROGER PILON: And that's what we have as essentially the basis of modern constitutional law, which many of us think is very far removed from the Constitution itself. And that serves to underpin so many of the constitutional controversies that are before us today, the perfect example being the Obamacare litigation that is before the Supreme Court right now, in which the fundamental question is: Does Congress have the power to enact this kind of legislation? ROGER PILON: It is a deeply divisive issue, and it indeed probably underpins everything else that is at issue in the country today from a constitutional perspective. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Power to regulate interstate commerce. We'll find out, obviously, a lot more about that when the - I think in March, when the Supreme Court hears those argument. ROGER PILON: Five-and-a-half hours of oral argument on that issue. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go to George, and George is on the line with us from Sheridan in Iowa. GEORGE: Yeah, hi. Yeah, I'd say that our current presidential campaigns illustrate what's wrong with our democracy. I mean, our democracy is broke. And I've met with farmers from all of the Central American countries after their peace process, and they said yeah, we've got the same problem as you've got. We've got two parties. One represents one set of millionaires or billionaires, the other party represents another set of millionaires or billionaires. And the rest of us, the vast majority of us, we're not rich enough to really participate. GEORGE: So if you have a limited government under that kind of situation, like we have today, a relatively few people in this country actually get to make decisions. And when push comes to shove, oh, we've got trillions of dollars to bail out the biggest, wealthiest institutions in our nation. So that's what you get when you have a limited government. ROGER PILON: And I think it's pretty clear that there are certain rights - unlike your person says from the CATO Institute - there are some certain rights that are absolutely necessary to be spelled out. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, George, thanks very much for the call. Akhil Amar, clearly the political party system is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. AKHIL REED AMAR: Well, that's what's conventionally thought. I respectfully dissent from that. I have a book coming out in September called "America's Unwritten Constitution," and I have a whole chapter on how political parties are part of our Constitution from start to finish. AKHIL REED AMAR: First of all, very strictly speaking, textually, the poll tax amendment refers to primary elections. That's the 24th Amendment, and so that's referenced. The 12th Amendment revises the presidential election system, and it does so quite emphatically to support an emerging two-party presidential system that was aborting, with Jefferson leading one party, and Adams and - leading the other party, Adams and Hamilton and Marshall. AKHIL REED AMAR: So the original Constitution, you're right, wasn't quite contemplating a two-party system, for example, for the presidency, but the 12th Amendment was designed for exactly such a system. And, in fact, almost all the amendments that we've had since then have been actually organized by political parties. AKHIL REED AMAR: Some - the 13th, 14th and 15th - were exactly partisan measures. Every single Republican except one voted for the 14th amendment, and every single Democrat voted against it. It was a total party measure. Thirteenth, 14th and 15th Amendments were strongly organized by parties. Our later amendments actually had been bipartisan amendments, but the party system is deeply built into how our system, in fact, work, and, in fact, if you read very carefully in the text of the amended Constitution. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Christina Murray, sort of a different situation in South Africa, where it has been, in its early years, pretty much a one-party system, and it is beginning, some believe, to evolve into more diverse political opportunities. CHRISTINA MURRAY: And while the South African constitution does mention parties in small ways, it - like the American Constitution doesn't put parties up front. But doesn't that again go to the kind of ways you make choices in designing a constitution? Because, as has just been mentioned, the choice of an electoral system has immediate consequences for the kind of parties you're going to get. CHRISTINA MURRAY: Now, in South Africa, we wanted to be very sure, at the end of a violent period of history, to have a legislature that was representative of all South Africans. CHRISTINA MURRAY: So we chose the system of proportional representation. We don't have constituencies or districts - electoral districts, I think you call it - as in the United States. We have one - the country makes up one huge district, and we vote for parties. The result of that kind of system - and that we knew that when we just made the decisions in 1994 - is that even very small groups of people can be represented in our parliament. CHRISTINA MURRAY: So there you have an example of something in the constitutional design, the choice of an electoral system that, one knows in advance, is going to lead to a particular kind of party system. For us... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Is there a trigger at which you can then join the parliament, 5 percent? CHRISTINA MURRAY: You - no. You need only a quarter percent of the vote to get into parliament. We have 400 seats in our parliament, so each seat needs a quarter percent of the vote, and so even very small parties, as I said, can get in. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Doesn't that - if you get down to - well, some people look at Israel's parliamentary system and say: This is a formula for inefficiency. It requires - even a big majority vote does not get a majority of the seats because you have so many small parties in there and blocs and coalition building. Do you fear that kind of a... CHRISTINA MURRAY: That is perfectly possible, and it's one of the consequences of this kind of system. For us, that's quite far down the road. And... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yes, as you have a one-party system at the moment. CHRISTINA MURRAY: ...we - at the moment, the governing party has, I think, 66 percent of the vote. So, again, you make a constitutional choice. But we couldn't have gone for the American system the left(ph) part of the Constitution because we couldn't have drawn electoral districts. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Akhil Amar, it's interesting. There was a piece by Rick Hertzberg that also criticized that same piece where Adam Liptak is getting in for a lot of shots, and he's not here to defend himself. But in any case, it talked about the experiences of South American countries, many of which adopted the U.S. Constitution much more closely than their modern equivalents and had difficult experiences with that checks and balances. The American system makes it difficult to do anything quickly, effectively, massively, unlike parliamentary systems. And you had a lot of military coups. You had a lot of presidents seizing power. AKHIL REED AMAR: That's a great question, and it's at the heart of very serious academic work that's been done by my colleague at Yale, Juan Linz, my another Yale colleague, Bruce Ackerman, and on the other side, my dear friend Steve Calabresi, founder of The Federalist Society. AKHIL REED AMAR: Linz and Ackerman believe that presidential systems, in general, lead to a certain kind of gridlock: the legislature controlled by one group, the presidency by another. The president - you can't get stuff done. Presidents get frustrated, and they then resort to presidential unilateralism, and this leads to caudillos and coups. And that's what Juan Linz and Bruce Ackerman say. AKHIL REED AMAR: And Calabresi defends the presidential system. He actually thinks that it has some real virtues. One question is whether the South American experience is distinctive in certain ways. And if you don't count the South American experience, the data are - look a little bit different. It raises the very biggest point of all. Christina Murray was talking about not just rights, but structure and parties and all the rest. AKHIL REED AMAR: We talk a lot about the Bill of Rights, but the truth is the Bill of Rights wasn't enforced for a very long time in America. It didn't apply against states for a very long time, and yet we were free. The biggest reason Americans have been free - connected to what you were just talking about - we did not have a standing army in a very - of huge size and consequence in America in peace time until after World War II. AKHIL REED AMAR: We did not have presidents with huge armies who could suppress citizens domestically. And that's basically a feature of our geography and our situation. In South America, they basically had presidents who used military power - these caudillos, in the Bolivar tradition - and they used armies to squash people domestically. And that's the history of a lot of the world, is executives using the military to suppress citizens. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about the U.S. Constitution as a model. Akhil Amar is with us from Yale, also Christina Murray from the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Roger Pilon at the Cato Institute. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Joe, and Joe's with us from Buffalo. JOE: Yes. Hello. I have a question about the U.S. Senate. One thing I would definitely not export to another country is any sort of rule that would allow a supermajority in an upper cameral legislature that would, in effect, prevent anything from getting done. I mean, our country has been locked into a vise by the so-called filibuster rule, which, to my knowledge, does not appear in the Constitution, and it was just a Senate rule that made it. I would definitely avoid any supermajority rules unless they are specifically enumerated. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Roger Pilon, the Senate does make its own rules, and after some experience with long-winded filibusters, decided on the supermajority, 60 votes, to get cloture, as it's called. But that, again, goes to the structure of a government, which seems to be designed not to get anything through very easily. ROGER PILON: Absolutely, and for good reason. The supermajority rule - and the number has varied over our history - is the result of the fact that the Constitution allows each house to set its own rules for internal governance. And the Senate, being the more deliberative body, has sought to establish rules that allow something to get out of the Senate only if there is a supermajority behind it. ROGER PILON: Now, we have a lot of complaint in this country today about gridlock. People often don't understand. They want government to do things. The framers had a very different view of that. They didn't want government to do things. They wanted, as I said earlier, a limited government. They put in all those checks and balances for a reason. After all, they could have written a constitution that had only one sentence: We authorize and empower the government to do good. But they didn't. They put those checks and balances to make sure if when anything did come out of the government, it had a substantial body of opinion behind it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much. That is Roger Pilon, the vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, with us here in Studio 3A. Our thanks again also to Akhil Amar, sterling professor of law and political science at Yale, now a visiting professor of law at Harvard. Here with us in Studio 3A also, Christina Murray, a visiting senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. I forgot to ask you, is there a paid vacation in the South African constitution? CHRISTINA MURRAY: No. And when you mentioned it, I wished we'd thought of that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: She's a professor of constitutional law at the University of Cape Town. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Coming up, Mike Nichols has won just about every major award in Hollywood and Broadway, now the director of "The Graduate," "Angels of in America" and many others is back on the great white way. He'll join us from our studios in New York. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

A new constitution is an essential step toward democracy for Egypt. During a recent visit to the country, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she "would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." Originally broadcast on February 13, 2012. Christina Murray, professor of constitutional law, University of Cape Town Akhil Reed Amar, Yale professor and author of America's Constitution: A Biography Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs, CATO Institute

Eine neue Verfassung ist für Ägypten ein wesentlicher Schritt in Richtung Demokratie. Bei einem kürzlichen Besuch im Land sagte Richterin Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sie würde \"nicht auf die US-Verfassung achten, wenn ich im Jahr 2012 eine Verfassung entwerfe\". Ursprünglich ausgestrahlt am 13. Februar 2012. Christina Murray, Professorin für Verfassungsrecht, Universität Kapstadt Akhil Reed Amar, Yale-Professorin und Autorin von America's Constitution: A Biography Roger Pilon, Vizepräsidentin für Rechtsangelegenheiten, CATO-Institut

新宪法是埃及走向民主的重要一步。在最近的一次访问中，大法官鲁思·金斯伯格说她“如果我要在2012年起草一部宪法，我不会指望是美国宪法。” 节目在2012年2月13日首播。开普敦大学宪法学教授克里斯蒂娜•默里、耶鲁大学教授阿哈尔·里德·阿马尔、《美国宪法：传记》作者，卡托研究所法律事务副总裁罗杰·皮隆 。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: President Trump insists that the U.S. did not pay to secure the release of Otto Warmbier. Warmbier was the young American imprisoned in North Korea in 2016. He fell into a coma and never regained consciousness. He was returned to the U.S. in 2017 and died shortly afterwards. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith joins us now to talk more about this story. And Tam, The Washington Post reported yesterday that the North Koreans demanded that the U.S. pay 2 million for Warmbier's hospital care, and there's more to it than that. Can you fill us in and tell us about the president's reaction? TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Yeah, so The Post story says that as the American team was preparing to leave North Korea with Warmbier, they were presented with an invoice that said, pay $2 million for his hospital care even though he fell into a coma while in their care. And care might be a charitable word. According to the article, the U.S. team signed an agreement to pay the bill at the direction of President Trump. And what the story doesn't say is whether the invoice was ever paid. Today President Trump insisted that it wasn't. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We don't pay money for hostages. The Otto case was a very unusual case. But I just want to let you know no money was paid for Otto. TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: He also called the Post story a fake news report. But I've asked the White House whether they are disputing other aspects of the story, and they aren't saying. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The president called this an unusual case. Is it? Is it rare for - or what do we know about how North Korea does this sort of thing? TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Yeah, so it may not be as unusual as you might think when it comes to North Korea. I called a man named Mickey Bergman. He's vice president of the Richardson Center for Global Engagement. He had worked early on in trying to get Warmbier freed, and he works all the time with families of Americans held captive in other countries. And he told me that in 1994, Bill Richardson, who he works with, brought back two pilots shot down in North Korea. And as Richardson was there, he was presented with a bill that included a line item for ammunition. He asked what it was for, and someone told him, well, someone has to pay for the bullets that we used to shoot them down. The U.S. did not pay for those bullets. TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: But Bergman told me that it's not unique for North Korea to present invoices. He told me that when you pick up a prisoner or a hostage, you do what you have to do to get the person out of there whether you intend on paying or following through or not. And he doesn't have direct knowledge of whether this invoice happened or not, but he said he wasn't surprised by it at all. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: What is U.S. policy when it comes to paying for Americans held overseas? TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: The U.S. doesn't pay for hostages - full stop. But it gets a lot more complicated from there. Otto Warmbier wasn't technically a hostage. Many Americans imprisoned overseas or held in other countries are political prisoners, and often that ends up involving more of a diplomatic conversation. There may not be a payment, but there may be political concessions. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: This morning, President Trump tweeted about the Warmbier case, and it quickly turned into this criticism of his predecessor. Quote, "this is not the Obama administration that paid $1.8 billion for four hostages." Can you unpack this for us? TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Yeah, so this is controversy that dates back to 2016. As part of talks around the Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. government agreed to release $400 million in Iranian money that it had been holding in escrow essentially since 1979 and $1.3 billion in interest. It also secured the release of five Americans who had been held in Iran. This blew up into a huge controversy when it was later revealed that 400 million of it came in cash that was delivered by plane at the same time that the Americans were being released. And the Obama administration eventually admitted that it had been using the cash as leverage. And it didn't turn it over until the Americans were released. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: That's NPR's Tamara Keith at the White House. Tamara, thanks for the background. TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: You're welcome.

President Trump says no money was paid to get North Korea to return American Otto Warmbier. But The Washington Post reports that Trump signed off on the payment that's yet to be paid.

Präsident Trump sagt, es sei kein Geld gezahlt worden, um Nordkorea zur Rückgabe des Amerikaners Otto Warmbier zu bewegen. Die Washington Post berichtet jedoch, dass Trump die Zahlung, die noch nicht erfolgt ist, unterschrieben hat.

特朗普总统表示，朝鲜没有出钱让美国人奥托·瓦姆比尔回国。但据《华盛顿邮报》报道，特朗普签署了这笔尚未支付的款项。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: President Donald Trump has not been shy about publicly criticizing the actions of the Federal Reserve. In the last two months, he's floated two controversial candidates for the Fed board, each with political ties to Trump. All this has raised concerns about the independence of the Fed. Here's Kenny Malone from the Planet Money podcast. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: There is a fundamental tension between presidents and the Fed. A president wants lower interest rates because it heats up the economy. It's good for re-election. The Fed may want to raise interest rates because if the economy gets too hot, inflation can spiral out of control. To deal with this conflict, back in 1951, the Truman administration agreed to free the Fed from political influence. The Fed needed the freedom to make unpopular decisions today to save us from massive problems in the long run. But this was basically a handshake deal until that deal was tested in 1963. LYNDON B JOHNSON: Bill, I just want to thank you for... KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: This is one of the first phone calls between President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Fed chair, William McChesney Martin. And you can hear Johnson saying, look, Bill; you're the expert. LYNDON B JOHNSON: Well, you just assume that you're starting with someone that didn't know much about your shop. And then you start telling me what I ought to know about it. WILLIAM MCCHESNEY MARTIN: Well, I certainly will help in every way that I can, Mr. President. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: Author Bob Bremner knew McChesney Martin personally, wrote a book about him. ROBERT BREMNER: I have kind of the corner on William McChesney Martin. It's the only book out there. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: Bremner says Bill Martin loved explaining to people what the Fed does. ROBERT BREMNER: Probably the most famous was his comment that the Federal Reserve's role was really to take the punchbowl away just as the party got going. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: In the mid-1960s, Martin started to tell Johnson, we need to slow the party down; the Fed is going to raise rates. Johnson was against this. ROBERT BREMNER: The stage was set for problems. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: Johnson kept trying to convince Martin, but when it failed, he asked his attorney general if he could fire Bill Martin. ROBERT BREMNER: And the attorney general disappointed him by saying, there's no way you can unseat him except for cause. And unfortunately policy differences do not constitute cause. LYNDON B JOHNSON: Hello. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Good morning. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: You can hear Johnson in phone calls like this one saying, I can't control Bill Martin; I've met with him half a dozen times; there's nothing I can do. LYNDON B JOHNSON: I haven't got control of that board. He's got control of it. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: The Fed went ahead and voted to raise the interest rate by one half of a percent. Johnson summoned Martin to his Texas ranch, called him into his office. And we don't know exactly what Johnson said. But here is Bob Bremner's description. ROBERT BREMNER: And Johnson is just fit to be tied, starts right off. You and the Federal Reserve have put yourself above my presidency. And you totally disregard my wishes and my policy goals. And then there is a reference to the fact that Johnson was so angry that he pushed Martin against the wall. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: Physically pushed him against the wall. ROBERT BREMNER: Physically pushed him against the wall. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: And what does Martin do? ROBERT BREMNER: Well, Martin says, Mr. President, we have not put ourselves over your presidency. This is one of those few occasions where the Federal Reserve decision has to be final. KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: This was a huge moment because Fed independence is not a law or a rule. It's just this handshake deal from the '50s. And so these kinds of moments tell the world, you can trust the U.S. dollar. The Fed is running its own independent monetary policy free from political influence - in this case, literally, when push came to shove. Kenny Malone, NPR News.

President Trump has taken several actions that could be seen as trying to influence the economic decision-making of the Federal Reserve board. He is not the first president to test their independence.

Präsident Trump hat mehrere Maßnahmen ergriffen, die als Versuch angesehen werden könnten, die wirtschaftliche Entscheidungsfindung des Vorstands der Federal Reserve zu beeinflussen. Er ist nicht der erste Präsident, der die Unabhängigkeit der Fed auf die Probe stellt.

特朗普总统采取了几项行动，可能会被认为是在试图影响美联储理事会的经济决策。他不是第一个想要测试他们独立性的总统。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, Democrats already thought they had plenty to grill William Barr about today when he comes to testify before Congress. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: And now they have even more. That more came in the form of a letter that special counsel Robert Mueller wrote to Barr suggesting that the attorney general hadn't properly summarized Mueller's report. A lot of Democrats were already convinced of that. William Barr will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. It is his first appearance there since a redacted version of Mueller's report was released to the public. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And let's bring in NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas. Ryan, good morning. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Good morning. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So tell me about this letter. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Well, it takes a bit of explaining. There's a backstory here. DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: So if you remember that weeks before the redacted Mueller report came out, Barr made public a four-page letter that contained the principal conclusions of Mueller's investigation. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Right. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: And Barr said that Mueller's team did not establish that there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. And he said that Mueller did not make a decision on obstruction of justice. Barr himself did, however, say he looked at the evidence and said it was insufficient to support a charge. We knew that Barr's characterization of the investigation frustrated some folks on Mueller's team. They thought that the attorney general was downplaying the severity of what investigators had found. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Well, it now turns out that Mueller himself had his own objections about Barr's handling of the matter, so he wrote this letter that we're talking about. He spelled out his concerns, thought that Barr did not fully capture the context, the nature, the substance of the special counsel's work. He feared that that would lead to public confusion. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: The Justice Department says Barr called Mueller after he got this letter. The two discussed it. The department says that Mueller said that nothing in Barr's summary was inaccurate or misleading, but that Mueller was frustrated about the lack of context in the media coverage related to the question of obstruction of justice. That's the Justice Department's take. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment. DAVID GREENE, HOST: But doesn't this feed directly into the narrative the Democrats are pounding - that the attorney general has been running interference for this president. And that is, I mean, seems like the obvious thing that they're going to want to bring up directly with Barr today, right? RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. There's no doubt that this letter is going to feature in today's hearing. As you said, Democrats have been furious with Barr for weeks now over his handling of the whole Mueller investigation and the report. They weren't happy with the summary letter. They were perhaps even more upset about Barr's news conference right ahead of the report's public release. Barr echoed the president's language in that news conference - said no collusion, no obstruction. But of course, the report detailed nearly a dozen incidents in which the president allegedly tried to obstruct investigators. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Democrats do say that Barr has misled the public about Mueller's investigation and what it found. They say he's trying to shape the narrative in the president's favor. They are also accusing him, essentially, of acting as a defense attorney for the president and not as the attorney general for the American people. And they are going to use today's hearing, which will be publicly televised, to hammer him on all of those points. Now, Barr also has to talk to the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow and Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of that committee, has made clear that he wants not to just hear from Barr, but he also wants to hear from Mueller. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Does the public want all this? I mean, do Democrats feel like they have public opinion on their side as they go after Barr aggressively and question all this? RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Well, as we've seen for a while now a lot of people's views on the president are baked in. The Mueller report doesn't appear to change a whole lot on that. There's a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll out today. A majority of Americans find Mueller's investigation to be fair. But more important than that, perhaps, more than half of the registered voters in the poll said Mueller's findings would not be an important factor in their 2020 vote. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Interesting. All right. NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas for us this morning. Thanks, Ryan. RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Thank you. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right. In Venezuela, the opposition leader, Juan Guaido, is making a direct plea for people to oust President Nicolas Maduro. JUAN GUAIDO: (Speaking Spanish). RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: That video was posted on social media last night after yet another day of violent clashes. Guaido urged his supporters to take to the streets again today. He's also calling for the military to defect. Guaido has strong international support, including that of the Trump administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to CNN yesterday and said this. MIKE POMPEO: It's been a long time since anyone has seen Maduro. He had an airplane on the tarmac. He was ready to leave this morning, as we understand it, and the Russians indicated he should stay. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right. I'm joined now by Mariana Zuniga. She has been reporting on the situation for NPR. She's in Venezuela. Good morning. MARIANA ZUNIGA, BYLINE: Good morning. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So Pompeo is suggesting there that no one has seen Maduro. He had an airplane on the tarmac ready to leave, but Maduro has responded to all this on state television last night. What exactly is the president saying? MARIANA ZUNIGA, BYLINE: Yeah. After many hours - maybe almost 12 hours of silence - Maduro finally appeared on national TV saying - very calm, actually - saying that an investigation was on their way to find the responsibles of this coup that he said that was defeated. He said that five militaries were injured as a result of the clashes and that 80% of the militaries who were with Guaido were actually misleaded, that they actually accompanied the interim president because they were lied. He said that the military remain loyal to him and that he was - they will remain loyal in the coming days. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And this is really a key question. I mean, you have Maduro calling this a coup attempt. You have the opposition saying that they have democracy on their side and that Guaido has a legitimate claim to be interim president here. So what do we know about the military? Are they sticking by Maduro, or are they beginning to move away from him? MARIANA ZUNIGA, BYLINE: Well, we still don't know what is the state of the uprising. We saw around 30 militaries yesterday with Guaido, but we don't know. We don't know how many militaries are currently supporting Guaido. For his part, Maduro keep insisting that the military is still back him. Also the Defense Ministry reinforce his support towards Maduro several times yesterday throughout the day. And it seems, just for the moment being, that the big part of the military is still supporting President Maduro. And maybe that it is important to say that in Venezuela, the military is not only supporting the government but is actually the government. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right. So a lot of questions and an unfolding political crisis in Venezuela. That's reporter Mariana Zuniga reporting from Venezuela for us. Mariana, thanks a lot. MARIANA ZUNIGA, BYLINE: You're welcome. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been sounding the alarm about a broken promise. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. And that promise wasn't to them. It was actually the thousands of Iraqi and Afghan interpreters, translators, others who served alongside those U.S. troops. Those people were told that in exchange for risking their own lives, as well as those of their families, they would get visas to the United States. But it looks like the U.S. may not be holding up its end of the deal. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And I'm joined by NPR's Quil Lawrence, who's been reporting on this. Hi, Quil. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Hey, good morning. DAVID GREENE, HOST: So tell me more about this program and why the number of visas would start dropping after this promise was made. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Right. So the Special Immigrant Visa program was set up for Iraqis and Afghans who served a certain amount of time with U.S. forces, and they were promised visas to the states after they did that. The Iraqi program has expired, technically, but there are still 100,000 Iraqis left in a backlog that's going through a separate process. Only 200 of them were admitted last year. I mean, at that rate, they'll die of old age a dozen times before they get here. The visas are also down about 60% in the Afghan program. Adam Bates is a lawyer from a group called the International Refugee Assistance Project. ADAM BATES: It would be impossible to say that these substantial drops are not part of some policy. These are people who put themselves at risk on behalf of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and are facing threats because of that service to the U.S. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And, Quil, I mean, I know you've been reporting on this and you've met some of the families impacted by this who are all too familiar with the risk that a lot of these people made helping U.S. troops, right? QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Right. I mean, interpreters have been marked for death by insurgents throughout these conflicts because they've collaborated - they've worked with the U.S. And for this story, we spoke with the family of Khalid Al Baidhani. Khalid Al Baidhani was working for U.S. troops in Baghdad in 2006. KHALID AL BAIDHANI: A car stopped right away, you know, and take out the pistol and start shooting me. Then I wasn't feel anything after that. I get shot. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: So he survived these gunshot wounds, and then he went back to work with U.S. troops after that and so did his uncle and one of his brothers who - his uncle was later murdered by insurgents. Now, Khalid Al Baidhani is now in the U.S. He got this visa, but his family is still in danger in Baghdad. They had the visas issued. They sold their house and everything else they had. They were ready to come, and the day before their flight, they were told that their visas had been put on a security hold. And they're now back in this 100,000-person backlog. DAVID GREENE, HOST: What? That's amazing. But you're saying that there are families - that it wouldn't be just one person in the family doing this. Multiple people in families would be serving in these roles, like, as interpreters. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Right. And their entire families would be under threat by the insurgents. It's particularly, you know, his father, his younger brother - they've all received death threats. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Has the U.S. government responded to this and suggested why this program is slowing down? QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: We've gotten responses from the Department of Homeland Security, from the State Department, essentially saying that they are trying to speed up the program, but they have added new layers of security. And security is their top priority. Now, 30 congressmen from both parties - congresspeople from both parties, some of them veterans, have written the Trump administration asking, why this slowdown? They just received a response essentially saying that there are new layers of security that different government partners are trying to work through. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: But advocates say this comes down to a promise that U.S. troops made to people who were serving with them in combat - their allies. And they've implied that if they break this promise now - and remember, these wars aren't over - what are people who are asked to work and help Americans going to think about this promise in the future? DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right. That's NPR's Quil Lawrence for us this morning. Quil, thanks so much for your reporting. QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Thank you.

Attorney General Barr heads to Capitol Hill to testify. Also, Venezuela's opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, continues to mount his strongest calls yet to oust disputed President Nicolás Maduro.

Generalstaatsanwalt Barr geht zum Capitol Hill, um auszusagen. Auch Venezuelas Oppositionsführer Juan Guaidó erhebt weiterhin seine schärfsten Forderungen, den umstrittenen Präsidenten Nicolás Maduro zu stürzen.

司法部长巴尔前往国会山作证。此外，委内瑞拉反对派领导人胡安·盖多继续发出最强呼吁，要求引发争议的总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗下台。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Joe Biden's entry into the presidential race is digging up comparisons with other vice presidents who have run for the higher office. Being the vice president, it might look good on the resume, but turns out, it's not always what you need to get the job done. Now, just like Walter Mondale, Joe Biden waited four years after leaving the vice president's office to become a presidential candidate. In the case of Mondale, well, he lost 49 of 50 states to Ronald Reagan. WALTER MONDALE: And although I would have rather won, tonight, we rejoice in our democracy. We rejoice in the freedom of a wonderful people, and we accept their verdict. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Walter Mondale there. Now, vice presidents trying to become president - that is the topic of this week's conversation with commentator Cokie Roberts. You sent us your questions, and we're going to pose them to her. And Cokie's on the line. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Hi, Cokie. COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Hi, David. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, let's get right to it, Cokie. Our first listener just has a really basic question about how often this has happened. KURT COOPER: This is Kurt Cooper from Tucson, Ariz. This seems like an early Republic, late 20th century phenomenon. Between then and now, were there that many VPs running for president? COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: There have been a good many. Martin Van Buren in 1836 was the last sitting vice president before George H.W. Bush to have been elected. But others have run and lost. John Breckinridge lost to Lincoln in a four-way race in 1860, Henry Wallace to Truman in a four-way race in 1948. Several won after they served out a president's term, but others lost in that situation. And then you have lots of vice presidents who failed to get their party's nomination - most recently, Dan Quayle. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right. Well, there are some who got both their party's nomination and became president. And that's what the next question focuses on. PAUL MCCARROL: My name is Paul McCarrol. I'm from Denver, Colo. And I'm wondering how many vice presidents have succeeded in attaining the presidency? Of those that did, how many did so in consecutive terms from the vice presidency and how many at a later date? COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Nine were actually elected, starting with John Adams and ending with George H.W. Bush. Five others became president when the man in the White House died or was assassinated. By the way, the first of those, David, was John Tyler. And he set the precedent for the vice president actually becoming president and moving into the White House, rather than simply assuming the powers and duties as the Constitution requires. On the second part of the question, Nixon was the only one elected at a later date than his service as vice president. DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. Nixon is the only one on that list. OK. We have another listener here. RYLEY WILSON: Ryley Wilson, St. Louis, Mo. How much has the success of the president when the candidate was vice president affected their chances for the presidency? COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: It matters a great deal as George Bush learned running, essentially, for Ronald Reagan's third term. But even with popular presidents, you have vice presidents who lose, as Richard Nixon did in 1960 and Al Gore did in the electoral college in 2000. DAVID GREENE, HOST: All right, we have one more question here. It's from Kyle Baiter. He wrote, has any such vice president been actively opposed by the president they served under? COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Yes, Thomas Jefferson (laughter). DAVID GREENE, HOST: OK. COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: He ran for president against the man he served under - John Adams. That was the famous election of 1800 and the beginning of partisan presidential elections. We've certainly had a lot of partisan elections since then. It took Eisenhower a while to campaign for Nixon. But that Adams-Jefferson race was a really rough one, David - good to keep in mind that politics hasn't just recently gotten nasty. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Set it in the historic context - commentator Cokie Roberts. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Cokie, we always appreciate it. Thanks. COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Always nice to talk to you. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And you can ask Cokie your questions about topics like this - how politics and government work. Just tweet us. Use the #AskCokie.

Commentator Cokie Roberts talks with NPR's David Greene and answers listener questions about the history of vice presidents who have run for president.

Kommentatorin Cokie Roberts spricht mit David Greene von NPR und beantwortet Fragen der Zuhörer über die Geschichte der Vizepräsidenten, die für das Präsidentenamt kandidiert haben.

评论员科基·罗伯茨与美国国家公共广播电台记者大卫·格林对话，并回答了听众关于副总统竞选历史的问题。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: Born in Ireland, Colum McCann came to this country 30 years ago, and set out on a bicycle to get to know his new country. He's spent the years since telling the stories he's heard on that cross-country trip and on - the stories he's heard since. His most recent novel, "Let the Great World Spin," won the National Book Award. One of his short stories, "Everything in This Country Must," was adapted into a short film that earned an Academy Award nomination. NEAL CONAN, HOST: He's here at the Aspen Ideas Festival to talk about the Story Swap project. More about that in just a moment. We also want to hear from writers in our audience today. Do you write about what you know, or do you write about what you want to know? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. We'll also be taking questions from our audience here at the Paepcke Auditorium in Aspen. Colum McCann is with us here on stage at the Aspen Institute. Thanks very much for being with us today. COLUM MCCANN: Thanks for inviting me. It's such a pleasure to be here. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's start with that cross-country trip. Why did you start to bicycle across the country? COLUM MCCANN: I think it was sort of a mad curiosity. I sat down to write a novel, and I bought a typewriter - a la Kerouac - and bought one of those huge rolls of... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure. COLUM MCCANN: ...paper and thought, I'm going to be just like Kerouac. And I was in Boston and Cape Cod. And after about six months, I had about six or seven lines on that roll of paper. COLUM MCCANN: And I had to look at myself. It was like, ah, you're just a middle-class Irishman, and you don't really know all that much about the world. I was 21 years old. And it was time to go out and live my life sort of disguised as a - well, we've been talking about water; disguised as a little creek, and go into all the other big rivers that are around there. And so I took off on a bicycle and went down to Florida, across to New Orleans, into Mexico. Back up through Colorado, came over Independence Pass here. That was great fun on a loaded bicycle, coming over the pass... COLUM MCCANN: ...and met all sorts of extraordinary people by the time I finished in San Francisco, a year and a half later. And the thing was that everybody had a story to tell. And I was gathering these things, and I learned how to listen and you - I sort of intersected with these incredible lives. And I mean, I ended up living with Native Americans in Gallup, New Mexico; staying with Amish people in Pennsylvania; working in a bike shop in Colorado; actually, fighting fires out in Idaho - well, not really fighting fires, but digging ditches; and realizing what work goes into like, you know, the little, small moments of everyone's anonymous, little corners. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Irish dug a lot of the ditches in this country. COLUM MCCANN: We dug the canals. We dug - but look, we dug a lot of ditches for ourselves, too. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And threw ourselves in, headlong. COLUM MCCANN: Yeah. Rivers of whiskey. too. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What did you learn about storytelling from the people you met along the way? COLUM MCCANN: Oh, well, I just - I learned how valuable it is to how we eventually negotiate our lives; how we end up. You know, we all tell stories in all sorts of extraordinary ways. We tell stories about how we dress. We tell stories about what we eat, about what we drive and - but then there are other, larger stories and - you know, our government tells us stories to send our kids to war; and other people tell us stories so that we'll fall in love with each other, or fall out of love with each other; and corporation tells us stories, in order to get us to try and buy their products. COLUM MCCANN: But in the end, what it comes down to is that old, Faulknerian notion that, you know, what is at issue here is the human heart. And we all want to be meaningful. I was just at this Story Swap convention, and Terry Tempest Williams was one of the writers there. And she said this - she said, you know, people of all - we think that the narrative is that everyone wants to be safe and middle class and so on. No, really, everybody wants to tell somebody else their story, and to be considered meaningful and decent, and that we've done something in the world. And that's, I suppose, what I learned about stories. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We hear a lot of stories on this program, too. But Story Swap, tell us a little bit about that. COLUM MCCANN: This is the most incredible program from the Aspen Writers' Foundation - also involved with the Aspen Institute - where kids will come from all corners of the globe and tell another kid their story; and then that kid will tell it back to the other person in their own words and negotiate the private, beautiful moments of their lives. And really, it's about understanding other people - because that's our job, more than anything else. COLUM MCCANN: I think one of the biggest political failures, and the biggest social failures, over the past few years has been the failure of empathy; not being able to look at the other person down the street. We sit inside, we draw the curtains, we close down, we put on the plasma television and we say, we are the important ones - when really, what's important is what's happening down the road. And if we can understand what's happening to others, then we can finally - sort of understand what's happening to ourselves because there's real loneliness in not being able to tell your story. NEAL CONAN, HOST: True. But in those kind of contexts, clearly, those kids are writing about what they know; their personal stories, as you know. COLUM MCCANN: Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you're a professional writer, you're going to run out of material pretty quickly. COLUM MCCANN: Yeah. I've always said that if I'm going to write about myself, I probably have a book and a half in me... COLUM MCCANN: ...and that half book is going to kill me because I'm going to keep on trying to write it. And when I get students in - I work in Hunter College, in New York - my first lesson is that you can't write about what you know about. And they're like, what in the world can I write about? And I say well, you should write towards what you want to know, and maybe even write what you don't know. And in the process of writing what you don't know, you will understand these things that are sort of written in your DNA that are deep in your body, but you weren't able to actually recognize at the time. It's the imaginative force of like, tapping into the stories that all of us, sort of, belong to. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you've written about dancers. You've written about New York City. These were not things that you grew up knowing. COLUM MCCANN: No. Listen, you know, I'm Irish. I can't dance, you know. COLUM MCCANN: And I've written about gay, Muslim ballet dancers. And here I am a white, middle class, heterosexual Dubliner. I've written about homeless people living in the subway tunnels of New York. I've written about tightrope walkers. Let's see - in my last book, "Let the Great World Spin," there's the character of a 38-year-old prostitute who performs her tricks underneath the Major Deegan - and I suppose that was a big stretch. NEAL CONAN, HOST: A highway near Yankee Stadium, for those who don't know. COLUM MCCANN: That's right. And my poor mother, back in Ireland, she's always like, Colum, what are you going to write about next? What are you going to embarrass me with next - you know? COLUM MCCANN: Because I love making those stretches because to be quite honest, I don't really want to be me. I don't want to wake up in the morning and roll out of bed and say, I have to spend another 24 hours with that carcass? COLUM MCCANN: I'd rather be some other carcass. And it's wonderful to inhabit the body, and the mind, of others. I mean, it's what you do on this show, and what people do when they listen to the radio. Right now, they're dreaming themselves into another space, and it feels great. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Susan Stamberg always said the pictures are better on the radio. COLUM MCCANN: Right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We want to hear from writers in our audience today. Do you write about what you know, or do you write about what you want to know - 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. Our guest is Colum McCann, the author of "Dancer," "Let the Great World Spin," "Zoli," "This Side of Brightness" and "Songdogs." And let's see if we can start with Ruth, and Ruth is on the line with us from Rochester, New York. RUTH: Yes, hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air. Go ahead, please. RUTH: Thank you. I do both. I write about what I know; and I write about things that are new to me, and that I didn't know before. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And if you turn down the radio, you will stop being quite so confused. RUTH: We just did. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Good. RUTH: We just did. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mm-hmm. Go ahead. And when you write about... RUTH: I'm sorry? NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...what you don't know, how do you find out about it? RUTH: Well, most of the information, I get from interviewing people. And that's part of the fun of it because that means I get to meet new people, and I'm constantly learning new things, or new angles, on things I already knew a little bit about. It's one of the things that makes being a freelance writer so much fun and so fascinating. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the great pay. RUTH: Well, for me - actually, yes. But for a lot of people, no. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Colum McCann, that sounds like you get to not only tell your story, but gather other peoples' stories, then weave them into a tapestry. Is that somehow - something like how you work? COLUM MCCANN: Absolutely. I mean, I love it. I like the idea that we live our lives out loud. We've got to be noisy. You've got to get out into the world and do these things, and learn about what's going on. So when I wrote the book called "Dancer," about Rudolf Nureyev, I went over to Russia. I went backstage in the Kirov. I actually had a moment where I danced on stage in the Kirov, and there were six ballerinas and... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And lightning struck? COLUM MCCANN: Yeah. No, laughter struck. COLUM MCCANN: Six ballerinas were in the front, and they just laughed and laughed and laughed at me. There was a babushka at the back of the theater, and she was sweeping away. And all she did - she looked down at me, and she very slowly shook her head. COLUM MCCANN: But that was my moment to dance, and to get into the world. But say, for example, getting into the head of this prostitute in New York in 1974, I went in and investigated boxes of rap sheets; hung out with cops; tried to meet people who'd been on the streets in the '70s, get their language and all that. It's a mosaic. You get photographs from here; you get films from there. And you collect all this stuff, and it's a big vat of experience. And then you try to boil it down to some little, tiny incident that says something about, you know, what we happened to be, who we happened - you know, what the human heart is like. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ruth, let me ask you. You said you do pretty well as a freelance writer. What kind of stories do you tell? RUTH: I write articles, and I do profiles of members of organizations and associations. I do feature stories - oh, in one instance, for the magazine of an organization that's involved with animal hospitals and veterinary care - so I've written a whole bunch of really interesting - I think, really interesting stuff on aspects of looking after animals, and how people and their pets interact and that kinds of - kind of thing. And I also do a lot of newsletters, or article projects, for various nonprofits. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, congratulations. There are few who do well as freelance writers. Thanks very much. RUTH: My pleasure. Thanks for letting me speak up. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with novelist Colum McCann about whether you tell - write about what you know; or try to find out about something you don't know, and write about that. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's go to Rebecca. Rebecca with us from Boulder, Colorado. REBECCA: Yes, hello. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. You're on the air. Go ahead. REBECCA: I just wanted to say that I - first of all, thank you and Colum - and everyone. I prefer - of course, I think - writing about my own experiences. I find it easier and ultimately, more meaningful, but that's personal. But I can come to care about a paid work or, you know, something very interesting that I knew nothing about. But I enjoy freelance writing, but I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I'm underpaid... COLUM MCCANN: Mm-hmm. REBECCA: ...under-appreciated. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The larger end of the spectrum, I suspect. REBECCA: Yes, yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And... REBECCA: Maybe. It's the hardest job, yes. Yeah. NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...do you write short stories or nonfiction or... REBECCA: Nonfiction, until now. Nonfiction, travel, culture, some cooking; and done magazine work - articles, interviews. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Colum McCann, I don't know about cooking. I know you've tried your hand at nonfiction as well. COLUM MCCANN: Oh, sure. Sure, sure. You know, I think both of these answers are correct. You write about yourself, and then you write about what, you know, what you don't know. But when you write about what you don't know about - or what you seemingly don't know about, you eventually get around to a version of yourself. It's the oblique, imaginative way. COLUM MCCANN: The other way - and it's just as valid, and just as good, and just as powerful. I used to laugh with the late, great Frank McCourt, who wrote only - sort of - about himself. And I'd say, Frank, I really hate the fact that you got all the misery in Ireland, and I got none of it. COLUM MCCANN: I grew up sort of middle class, safe and suburban. And so - and - but we both sort of attempted to tell a decent story. But ultimately, you know, I'm really not interested in myself. I'm sort of more interested in the fabric of others. And then I go home and try to boil it up inside myself. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I grew up listening to his brother, Malachy, on the radio so... COLUM MCCANN: Ah, a great character, too - right? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, Rebecca, and good luck. REBECCA: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's go to the microphone here at the Paepcke Auditorium. Jared is with us. JARED: When I graduated high school, I got a lot of books about surviving college. And then when I was finally in college, I'm like, man, I can write a book way better than these books. And so I got about 30 pages into it, surviving university, and I realized that - Colum, being a writer is hard. COLUM MCCANN: Mm-hmm. JARED: And, you know, looking at how surviving college - I had realized that my 30 pages had to all be rewritten, and started over. And just because I could survive college doesn't mean that I could write a book. So I pressed delete. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ah, yeah, but you did it. See, the thing is, the very notion of doing it and attempting it and fighting it, is fantastic. I'm a big advocate of the notion that you just - no matter what you do, and no matter what book has ever been written, it has always failed. It has always fallen short, in some sort of way. But just the notion that you get up there and you try it - and it is difficult. But the other thing is that a life of a plumber is difficult. These lads who are out fighting fires in Colorado now, that's an incredibly difficult job. It's difficult to man the microphones here. Everybody has peculiar, beautiful sort of skill, and then we find the place where we happen to be. And then these lives become valid in all sorts of ways. COLUM MCCANN: But that's why we have to investigate the stories of other people. And that's why something like the Aspen writer foundation's Story Swap idea is incredible - because we need to connect. We have all these vectors in the world, sort of missing each other. But what happens when the vectors smash against - at one another, and we make new connections? So it just becomes, you know - it sounds romantic and sentimental, but I don't believe it is. You know, our job is to make the world just a little bit of a better place. NEAL CONAN, HOST: It is our job, but I wonder if the distinction that we've been talking about is, in some ways, the distinction between amateur writers and professional writers. If you're going to have a book and a half in you, or as - Frank McCourt did two books. If you're going to be a professional writer, you'd best have some more material. COLUM MCCANN: Yeah. I think you've got to look outside yourself. But I think a lot of people, when they say they write about what they know about, they will get outside. They'll kick open the door. They'll go down the street. They'll find somewhere new to go. So I don't prescribe that there's any one way for a writer to operate. You've got to tell a really, really, really good story. COLUM MCCANN: For me, personally, that story means just getting outside and experiencing something new. It's also a form of travel, and I love traveling. You know, I used to go out on my bicycle. And now I've got kids; it's more difficult to travel. I walked across Ireland a couple of times, you know; I've traveled.... NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's a small country, yeah. COLUM MCCANN: ...through Japan. Small country - but I tell you, people used to say, are you mad? There's a bus down the road, you know. COLUM MCCANN: I'd be going along and they'd say, what are you doing? They used to say I was three sandwiches short of a picnic - which is a great Irish phrase. And... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Colum McCann, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there. But thank you so much for your time today, and good luck with the Story Swap project. COLUM MCCANN: Thank you so much. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Colum McCann joined us here on stage at the Aspen Institute. He's here, working on the Story Swap project. His next novel, "Transatlantic," is due out next year. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tomorrow, Romney adviser Vin Weber and Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg join us, along with Political Junkie Ken Rudin. Join us for that. It's the TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan, in Aspen.

When Colum McCann came to the U.S. from Ireland in the early 1980s, he set out on a cross-country bicycle trip to get to know his new country and its stories. He's spent the years since telling those tales through prose. With his Story Swap project, McCann is helping diverse communities better understand each other by sharing their own stories. Learn more about Colum McCann's Story Swap project.

Als Colum McCann Anfang der 1980er Jahre aus Irland in die USA kam, machte er sich auf eine querfeldein-Radtour, um sein neues Land und seine Geschichten kennenzulernen. Er hat seit Jahren damit verbracht, diese Geschichten in Prosa zu erzählen. Mit seinem Projekt des Geschichtenaustausches hilft McCann verschiedenen Gemeinschaften, sich besser zu verstehen, indem er ihre eigenen Geschichten teilt. Erfahren Sie mehr über das Projekt des Geschichtenaustausches von Colum McCann.

20世纪80年代初，科伦·麦凯恩从爱尔兰来到美国，为了解他的新国家和其背后的故事，他开始了越野自行车之旅。这些年来他一直在用散文的方式讲述那些故事。借助他的故事交换项目，麦凯恩通过分享不同国家的故事来促进这些国家更好地相互了解。了解更多关于科伦·麦凯恩的故事交换项目。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan from the Aspen Ideas Festival. Everybody knows happier workers are more productive workers, and companies try all kinds of ways to boost morale. But most conclude that building a happier office is an art. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Now researchers from MIT and the Harvard Business conclude it's a science. The key is communication - no duh - but less on what we say than how we say it. And they argue that small, concrete steps can make a big difference, things like moving the coffee stations and lengthening the tables in the lunchroom. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We want to hear from those of you who work in offices about the physical changes that make your office a better place to work, or not. 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. We're also going to take questions from the audience here in the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Jerome, and thanks, everybody, for coming in today. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, musician and DJ Moby joins us to talk about the story he tells through his photographs. But first Ben Waber, president and CEO of Sociometric Solutions, a senior researcher at the Harvard Business School, and he's with us here on the stage at the hotel Jerome. Thanks very much for coming in. BEN WABER: Good to be here. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So how does moving a coffee station make for a more productive workplace? BEN WABER: Well, so it's interesting. So if you think about who you normally talk to when you're at a coffee station, a lot of the times you're actually going to bump into people that you don't really see very often. So when you think about getting new ideas or understanding what's going on at the company, those interactions, interacting with people that you don't normally see, that aren't really in your social circles, can really help broaden your perspective and giving you really interesting insights that otherwise, just sitting at your desk, you really wouldn't come up with. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So it shouldn't be a TALK OF THE NATION coffee station but rather a news department coffee station, where I might run into Shankar. BEN WABER: Exactly. Well, it's something where both of those are valuable, and I think one of the really important things is companies need to understand which types of those sort of situations - do you want to have a more cohesive group interaction, or do you want to have people branching out? BEN WABER: Both of those certainly have their place, but it's understanding really what - what are the levers that enable you to do that that I think is really important. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The other example that I thought was interesting in your presentation was there was a company that was trying one of the standard ways to boost morale and build esprit de corps, and that's, you know, a beer bash and bowling and that sort of thing, none of which had much of an effect. NEAL CONAN, HOST: What did change things was lengthening the tables in the lunchroom? BEN WABER: So it's really interesting. So this particular company, every evening, actually every Friday evening at about 4:30 p.m., they had this event where they would give beer to all their employees. Now, first of all, you can question the wisdom of giving beer to your employees before they drive home, but I think that's a separate issue. BEN WABER: The idea behind that event was to try to get you to talk to different people, to try to have a - again, a much more cohesive work environment. But when we looked at that data, it actually just didn't support it. What we did is we actually looked at how people were interacting over that period of time, and you just didn't see those interactions happening. BEN WABER: What you did see happen was during work, during lunch time, you had a few different types of lunch tables. You had some people who were sitting at smaller lunch tables, just sort of randomly. They normally sat at lunch tables that had about four seats. And other people would sit at lunch tables that were much longer. BEN WABER: And what was really interesting is when you looked at who those people would talk to after lunch, I mean there's just an inherent limit on if you're sitting at a lunch table with four chairs, there's only three other people you could talk to, versus if you sit at a lunch table with more chairs, you could talk to more people. BEN WABER: And what you saw was that these larger lunch tables enabled you to branch out but still have this much larger cohesive group that later on in the day, if you just needed to talk to somebody, you knew that person, and so you could go out and talk to them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So it's where you sit in the cafeteria which justifies Meryl Streep's famous remark in a commencement speech at a university that life isn't really much like college, it's more like high school. BEN WABER: I guess that's certainly one way to put it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Nevertheless, you talk about data. How are you collecting data on lunch and beer busts(ph) ? BEN WABER: Sure, well, so I'd say normally the way that people collect data on these sort of things is there's two ways. One is by using surveys, and they'll ask you who you talked to over the last week. We're just all really bad at answering those sort of questions. Even me asking you who did you talk to yesterday, we're just - we normally just say the people we talked to yesterday are our friends, which is not accurate. BEN WABER: So another way people do it is they have human observers, and human observers will follow you around the office, but there's lots of issues with that. First of all, I can only follow one or two people at once, and also it just doesn't scale. So what we did... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And lurkers can creep people out too. BEN WABER: Well, and that, as well. There's of course that effect as well. But what we ended up doing was develop a new type of name badge. So most name badges that people have in companies already actually have sensors in it. So they'll normally have a little RFID chip, in the (unintelligible) in the nametag, which actually provides information on location. BEN WABER: So if I put little readers around an office, I would know where you are. What we did is we added additional sensors to look at not just where you are but who are you talking to and how are you talking to them, not what you say but in real time doing voice processing, looking at how your tone of voice changes, how your volume changes, how your speaking speed changes. BEN WABER: And we do this - just to be clear, we don't give companies that data on the individuals. What we do, are able to do with that data, though, is we're able to say what are the patterns of communication and collaboration, and how does that relate to outcomes that we care about? NEAL CONAN, HOST: And using that data, you've been able to predict financial progress or failure at companies. BEN WABER: Right, so what we've done is we go into companies, we actually have hundreds, thousands of these badges. And so what we can do is go into companies, and we have employees at the companies wear this for weeks or months at a time. And then we understand what are the relationships between different people, and how do those relationships relate to performance and job satisfaction. BEN WABER: And so we can actually say with that data, you know, when two employees eat lunch together, how much money does the company make. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Really? BEN WABER: Yeah. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Down to that dollar-and-cents figure? BEN WABER: Well, because what you can do is you can say, well - it depends on the company, but there's many companies where we were able to get data on what the - the hard numbers of an employee's performance, so how many dollars did that employee make, be it per month or per day, and then we could look at the data that our sensors collected. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this was not only in a quantifiable situation like a call center, where these data points are pretty easy, but less reliable situations like hospitals. BEN WABER: Sure, what's really interesting about this is that while it's very nice to tie the data we collect to hard numbers, we can also do it in environments where previously it's very difficult to figure out what someone's performance is. So hospitals is something where - for example, what is bedside manner? What is good bedside manner? BEN WABER: It's something that's often bandied about, but we don't have a really good sense for quantitatively what that means. And what we were able to do in a hospital is show that the way the medical personnel interact with a patient has a direct impact on how long it takes that patient to get better. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with Ben Waber, president and CEO of Sociometric Solutions. His new book, "Social Sense," is due out next year. He's a senior researcher also at the Harvard Business School. We'd like to hear from members of our audience as well, people who work in offices. What physical changes around the offices make the workplace a happier place or maybe not so happy? 800-989-8255. Email us, talk@npr.org. Let's start with David, David on the line with us from San Francisco. DAVID: Hi yeah, this is an interesting conversation for me. For five years, I worked for a website company in Silicon Valley, and I came from sales, so my preference was to, you know, if you're going to have an extended chat, to chat in person. But what I discovered there was that even if you are sitting right in front of a person, they prefer to communicate via instant message. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'd like to know the name of that company because I think Ben Waber would like to sell his stock in it. DAVID: I don't think he'd - I don't know he'd be very successful because people - sometimes it's - you know, sometimes that's a good reason because it's sort of like a library atmosphere, where it's very quiet, and conversations might interrupt it, but people just - you know, I don't know. Sometimes they just don't want to get up out of a chair and walk over. It's quicker to do an instant message. DAVID: And also you have a transcript of what you've said. I think partly it's also cultural, people - or just behavioral. People - there are a lot of introverts. And anyway, I just thought it was interesting that I could be sitting right in front of someone and they'd rather... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Send you a text message. One of the things that you evaluated in your research was the value of a face-to-face conversation as opposed to an email or a text message. BEN WABER: Exactly, so in a lot of the companies that we work with, we actually also collect data on email, on instant messaging, and we look at those patterns as well and see if those relate to outcomes. And the unfortunate fact is that it turns out that those different communication channels just don't really predict how happy you are, how successful you're going to be, as much as face-to-face does. BEN WABER: And that's not to say that there's no good use of email, and there's no good use of IM. What it is saying, though, is that especially if you're collaborating on very complex tasks - I mean if you think about - you know, we've worked at pharmaceutical companies. We've done work with major IT firms, with companies building aircraft. If you think about people doing those sort of things, you're talking about very complex topics. BEN WABER: And the time it would take for me and you to have a very complex conversation about any topic related to that, either over IM or over email, would take orders of magnitude longer than us sitting down face to face and having that conversation. BEN WABER: Now, as the caller mentioned, a lot of times there are cultural barriers to this, that there is a view in many companies that you're supposed to sit at your desk and do your work and not talk to anybody, and that's how you're the most effective. The numbers just don't bear that out though. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to - this is Russell, and Russell's with us from Nashville. RUSSELL: Hello. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, go ahead, please. RUSSELL: I had a question in regard to whether these conversations and interactions away from the desk had a detrimental impact on what employees talked about when they go back to work. Is there an increase in gossip? Is there an increase in non-work-related talk? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ben Waber? BEN WABER: So yeah, what I would say is that we didn't actually know exactly what people were talking about. There were some circumstances where we were able to collect additional data, and we did have a good sense that people were talking about work-related topics versus non-work-related topics. BEN WABER: For example, we knew when people were working on specific tasks, and they were essentially on the clock. So if they were talking about sports, for example, they would be losing money by having that conversation rather than talking about something work-related. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Unless they were on the line with their bookie. BEN WABER: Of course, of course, maybe again, they'd do that sort of economic analysis. BEN WABER: But what I would say is that when you look at these sort of patterns, you know, obviously business-related interactions are important. But I would argue that the informal interactions are also very important. If you are having a very tough time at home, or you are very depressed, it's important for you to talk about that with other people. BEN WABER: By having those conversations, you're able to be more effective at work. You're able to be happier at work. And this, this very strong focus that we have and this bias we have against talking about non-work-related things at work is, I think, very detrimental to all of us. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call, Russell. RUSSELL: Great, thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There was an interesting finding also that there was a company, a call center company, I think, that had staggered the coffee breaks of people to man the phones, makes sense, except when you coordinated the coffee breaks, everybody was on their coffee break together chatting away, productivity improved dramatically. BEN WABER: Yes, it's even in the call center, where you traditionally think of these individuals sitting on the phone and not talking to each other - even in that sort of scenario you find that this sort of interaction has very strong effects. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about making work work. What makes for happier, more productive employees? Research shows - also shows a connection between business success and diversity. More about what that means for business and workers in just a moment. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you work in an office, what physical changes make your office a better place to work or not? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan at the Aspen Ideas Festival. We're talking about the science of making offices and workers happier. That's right - science. Small things can make a big difference, like moving the coffee machines, getting longer lunch tables. So does diversity. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Studies show that diverse companies are more successful and that employees think differently and come up with new ideas when they're part of diverse groups. We want to hear from those of you who work in offices about the physical changes that make your office a better place to work, or not. 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. We'll also take questions from the audience here in the ballroom at the Hotel Jerome in Aspen. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Our guest is Ben Waber, president and CEO of Sociometric Solutions and a visiting scientist at the MIT Media Lab. NPR's Shankar Vendantam joins us now from the stage here in Aspen; he's the author of "The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars and Save Our Lives." Nice to have you with us today. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Nice to be here, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And just to begin, when we're talking about diversity, what does that cover - ages, ethnic groups, black, white, brown? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Yeah, I think people have defined diversity broadly, and you know, certainly, I think, ethnicity and gender may be the principal ways we think about diversity, but in recent years they have tried to try and expand the notion of what diversity includes to include everything from sexual orientation to socioeconomic diversity and most importantly, perhaps, the diversity of ideas. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: So do you actually have people in the workplace who actually think differently, who have different values, who want to do different things? And so diversity really is a very broad term that, you know, in many ways is often narrowed to - is made too narrow by focusing only on race and ethnicity. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Shankar, as you look at this, is this a conscious, something that happens consciously or something that happens unconsciously? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Do you mean in terms of our understanding of diversity? NEAL CONAN, HOST: No, no, in terms of when we say diverse companies are more successful. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Well, it's actually been an area of some contestation, Neal. So if you look at the sociological literature, there is certainly a correlation between companies that are very big and successful and make a lot of money, and their diversity. So companies that are very big and successful tend to be also quite diverse. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: But it's not clear which way the arrow of causation runs. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Whether successful companies are diverse or whether diverse companies are successful. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Exactly, and the research in diversity actually suggests in some ways conflicting things, which is on the one hand diversity clearly seems to have the ability to bring different people into the conversation and therefore increase creativity and sort of creative conflict, but it also has the potential to increase conflict, which is that people disagree with one another because they have different views. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: You have liberals and conservatives sitting together and discussing health care or people who are old and people who are young or people who are black and white. And in many ways I think the latest research on diversity really suggests that what matters is how it's done, not so much, you know, can you check a box that says yes, I got one black person, one Latino person, one woman, one gay person. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: You know, the checkbook sort of approach to diversity might not actually be as successful as saying is this a workplace that fosters learning, where people are actually willing to communicate with one another and take risks with one another. And it's those workplaces where diversity seems to work. It's not - so diversity in itself might not always work. It's how diversity gets done that seems to be the key. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ben Waber, it's interesting, that's - I'm not sure your research - did research directly on diversity, but you did research on the kind of employee who can make your company more productive, and it isn't necessarily the smartest guy. BEN WABER: Well, yeah, I think that's what's really interesting, is that this idea of diversity we so often reduce down to demographics, but what really matters in terms of company performance, as well as individual performance, is this diversity of opinion an interacting with people from different social groups that you don't normally interact with that. BEN WABER: And certainly that is conflated, a lot of times, with demographics, but the ability within companies to reach out and talk to these different groups and get different opinions is a lot of what makes people and companies very successful. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Exploration I think is your codeword for it. BEN WABER: Yes, exactly. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can get a question from the audience here at the Hotel Jerome. CINDY RHYMAN-YOST: Hi, my name is Cindy Rhyman-Yost, and now that technology allows people to kind of work or live wherever, what has the research shown about happiness and productivity for people who have the opportunity to work from home? As we're having this big conversation all week about having it all, having done both things, working from home is a really great option. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ben? BEN WABER: So yeah, I mean I think that when you look at the actual data, one of the issues is that if you work from home and you don't communicate with anybody, you're going to be much less effective. And a lot of the research shows that even if you work from home, if you work on a remote team, you need to meet in person occasionally in order to be successful, just to have that sense of what is really this other person about. BEN WABER: Can I trust them? How should I talk to them? That's something that's very difficult to do right now remotely. Just the communication tools we have today are just very bad at supporting those kind of interactions. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There was interesting conclusions you came to, that even when there is video conferencing, the more people you add in, the less effective it is. BEN WABER: Well, when you think about - I mean for those of us who have been on video conference calls, what typically will happen is you'll have one or two people who are going to dominate the discussion, and adding other people in just means those are - that's one more person who's not participating, and that makes them feel left out, and at the end of the day it really means that the whole conference doesn't really accomplish very much. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email question from Chase in Denver: I work for a small software company in Denver, Colorado. One way my company increases efficiency and morale is by implementing a dress code called flip-flops or ties, allowing employees to be more comfortable during our busy periods. Employees dress how is most comfortable for them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The program has been immensely successful. Shankar, I wonder if you've had any thoughts about that. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Yeah, I think certainly. I mean so encouraging people to be themselves I think is really important. I was reading a recent paper by this marvelous researcher called Robin Ely(ph); she's actually at the Harvard Business School. And what she did was she looked at this large financial company, it's a bank that had 500 branches all over the Northeast. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: And she looked at how, you know, how do people in these - in each of these branches think of their ability to learn or to contribute. And what she found was that there was a very strong correlation between the reported willingness of people to share information, to be themselves, to be creative, and the productivity of the branch. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: And so it wasn't just how different are people. You know, a company where everyone wears flip-flops, is that going to be a creative company? Well, maybe, but maybe it's not going to be a creative company. It's really what are people willing to share with one another, to take risks and to learn from one another - that's what makes the difference. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I wonder, Ben Waber, does your data suggest, all right, call center, not the most creative environment on the planet. I think all of us would... BEN WABER: I think we can agree on that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Agree on that. In more creative environments, graphic design (unintelligible) do the data continue to support these kind of conclusions? BEN WABER: I think it does. I mean I think what's really interesting is - again, I think exactly what Shankar was mentioning was that if you feel more comfortable interacting with other people and opening up to them, then maybe you can make unpopular assertions, and you can have a more productive discussion rather than keep things to yourself and wait for everything to fall apart before saying, oh, well, I thought of that a while ago. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, let's get another caller in. This is Judy, Judy on the line with us from Cape Cod. JUDY: Hi, Neal. Thanks for having my call. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure. JUDY: I wondered if any research or any data was collected regarding the comfort of a person on the job as far as temperature, you know, physical comfort, all of those things. I work in an office that's in an older building, and our particular department is very cold in the summer. When the air conditioning is on, it's like walking into a refrigerator in the morning. JUDY: And we all complain incessantly, of course, and I'm - I just wonder how that affects morale and if you have any data on that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The big chill, Ben Waber. JUDY: The big chill. BEN WABER: So we don't have any data on that specifically, but I would say that this is another good point about things like temperature actually being very important for companies, being very important for morale, but something that companies often don't pay attention to. BEN WABER: You think that, you know, oh, a thermostat, that's just someone in HR, that's their business. But when you look at the numbers, I am sure that is going to have a significant impact on the bottom line for companies. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Shankar, intuitively you would say of course it's going to affect productivity. Do intuitive conclusions, are they questionable a lot of the times? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: I think they actually are questionable much of the time, and what I'm about to say is probably going to make me the most unpopular man in America, but I'm going to say it anyway, because I'm stuck in front of a microphone. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: You know, I'm going to make a plug for actually being uncomfortable. You know, we often, I think, place too much of a premium on actually being comfortable. And I was speaking with this wonderful psychiatrist called Ron Heifitz(ph), and he's done a lot of work looking at leadership and, you know, the role of what leadership actually does. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: And the analogy he often uses is the analogy of the pressure cooker. So if you think about the pressure cooker, you get the lentils and the carrots to mix only because there's pressure inside the pressure cooker. You take the pressure out and the lentils and carrots don't actually mix with one another. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Now, I'm not necessarily saying this means we should all turn the temperature down to 40 degrees because, you know, not all kinds of conflict are equally good. But certainly encouraging conflict between people in the workplace, you know, creative conflict is, I think, fundamentally a good thing to do, not a bad thing to do. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tough it out, Judy, I think that's what you just heard. JUDY: OK, thank you, bye-bye. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the phone call. One of the parts of your research that I was very interested in, Ben Waber, is the fact that these kinds of behaviors, using your data, can be taught. BEN WABER: Well, I think that's what's really interesting, is a lot of these things just people naturally behave in a certain way. You naturally reach out and talk to lots of people. You naturally have a tightly knit group. But there are small ways you can change your behavior. BEN WABER: First of all, once you know that, for example, reaching out is important, you can do something as simple as going to the coffee area even if you don't drink coffee and just sitting there, having a cup of water and talk with some people. And it's very easy to do, and it actually has a very big impact. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how do you convince people that they're not doing enough of it and that doing more of it might be helpful? BEN WABER: So, a lot of times, what we do is when we go into companies, first of all you have the numbers. You can say, this is how much of this specific activity you did. This is what it relates to on the bottom line, and here are some ways you can improve. And it's very difficult for people to argue with hard numbers. You can show that that behavior has a very tangible impact on their outcome. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the data enables you to have effectively a feedback loop. You can say, look, you haven't done this the past week and your productivity is down. BEN WABER: Exactly. I think that's what's - when you look at the future of this technology, that's what's really exciting. Imagine having this data for millions of people for years at a time. The types of things that researchers can learn, but also the types of things that you can learn about yourself and how you're changing over time, I think, is really exciting. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Shankar, you look like you have some questions about it. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Well, I really had a thought, which is when you - if you go to the standard office cafeteria, what you find is not just people sitting, you know, in big tables and small tables, but you find that people cluster. And so, sociologists have noted this for many, many years. They call it homophily, that if you go to a workplace, you will find, you know, older workers sitting with older workers, and younger workers sitting with younger workers, and people in this department sitting with people in their own department. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yeah. High school again, yeah. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Right. And so I think it's clear that what we want is to get people to mix. But I think if a command comes down from on high, from management, saying, you shall now meet with people from another department, I'm not sure how effective it's going to be. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: And what I actually find interesting about the long table idea is that it's actually a very subtle nudge, if you will. You know, the - Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein had this book "Nudge" a few years ago. And what it's about is basically that the way you shape the architectural choices that people have has a very powerful role in what kind of choices they end up making. So, in other words, we think of our choices as being completely autonomous and volitional. But really, we're shaped, our behavior is shaped by whether the table is, you know, small or long. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So it's not a mandate. It's a suggestion. SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Yeah. I think a suggestion is much more powerful. I don't know if Ben's research speaks to that at all in terms of what's effective. But, you know, if a manager came and told me, you shall now go and speak to this person down the hall that you don't actually like, I'm not sure I'd follow the advice. BEN WABER: Yeah. Well, I think that's a very good point, is that a lot of the times, the way that organizations think about communication and collaboration, they say, well, you report to this person. So that means you have to talk to them. But that's not what happens. That's not actually how work gets done. And I think that's another reason why you find companies all across the world with very smart people doing the same, frankly, dumb things because they have this sort of view on how people should be interacting. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's Ben Waber, who's president and CEO of Sociometric Solutions, and his new book is called "Social Sense." It's due out next year. Also with us, Shankar Vedantam, who's the correspondent with NPR science desk. His book is "The Hidden Brain." We're at the Aspen Ideas Festival. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And here's an email from Isabel(ph): I recently started my first job out of college. A lot of what's being said is resonating with me. I find that if I don't take scheduled lunch breaks with my co-workers, I find myself seeking out other forms of interaction, generally through texting, social media or reading articles online, clearly reducing my productivity. Today might be one of those days. I guess I'm looking to interact with people through this program. I hope my boss isn't listening. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there were sort of conflicting data that we talked about - exploration, going outside of your workgroup. But also you want to build team spirit. BEN WABER: Yeah. Well, I think there's sort of two parts to this, right? It's not just that interacting with many diverse people is always good. You also need to have this core group of people that you can commiserate with. If you don't have that core group of people that you can trust, you can imagine talking to people in many different groups. And it'll be very difficult for us to be on the same page all the time because you don't know what I'm working on. I don't know what you're working on. BEN WABER: And trust is also hard to develop in that - in those circumstances because I don't - if I give you a piece of advice, I have no idea if you're holding out on me, versus if we're in a tight-knit group, I can give you advice. And if it turns out you gave all of our other friends advice, I'm going to find out about it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a question here on the microphone. MONA SHIPLEY: Hi. My name is Mona Shipley(ph). I'm from India. And while you're talking about different office environments, I think one of the things we need to take into consideration is different cultures as well. I'm particularly talking about the Asian culture and the open office environment. Globally, they say, it's a place, if you work in an open office environment, you have more teamwork, more productivity or whatever. MONA SHIPLEY: But in Asian culture, there is like a tendency to eavesdrop at times, and that could be like - that could land up a lot of people in problem. But at the - so that's just an opinion that I have. So when we are talking and discussing, I think culture also play a role in different office environments. I don't know if there's a research on that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I'm not sure there's research, but I'm sure glad eavesdropping never happens in Washington. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Shankar, any thoughts on that? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Yeah. I mean, I think I'd be cautious about stereotyping an entire group or sort of assuming that this happens only in one context or another. But I certainly think that the questioner's point - which is that the culture - that culture matters, that, you know, you want to be sensitive to what's happening and what - how people are. You know, using the information you're giving them is very valuable. But I'd be fascinated to know if there's actually research that looks at non-U.S., non-Western context and finds the same things are affected elsewhere. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I know you've done research in Germany. Elsewhere? BEN WABER: Yeah. We've done research in Germany. We've also done research in Japan. Actually, I lived in Japan for a while. It's very interesting because in Japan - actually, I guess similar to in India - they're big proponents of the open office model. BEN WABER: But what that means in Japan is sometimes you have an open office where you have 3,000 people sitting in one room. And it's interesting because it's open, and so you can talk to anybody. But as a result, you can't talk to anybody because if you say something, 3,000 people are going to hear what you're saying. BEN WABER: And I think it's something where we have to take that into account and take culture into account when we look at this data. I mean, I think the important thing - from our perspective, I guess - is that we need to collect data on an Indian company. How - what makes people effective? And it might not be the same thing that makes people effective here. BEN WABER: But I would argue that you do see a lot of things translate across cultures, and you do see a lot of things that - you know, even within the U.S., there are some companies - you know, for example, if you come into Facebook with flip-flops, maybe you won't get fired. If you work at hedge fund, you probably would. And there's just different cultures in different companies. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I wonder - I just have a few seconds left, but has there been much resistance to the admittedly big-brotherish aspect of knowing where somebody is all the time, what their facial gestures are, what their tones of voice are and what their gestures are like? BEN WABER: Yes. So I think what's really important - in our work, we actually - we use an opt-in model. So we don't force people to participate, and they can even wear a fake badge if they don't want to participate so that nobody knows that they're not participating. I think the danger is certainly that actually under the U.S. legal system, an employer could force its employees to wear these sort of sensors, and they could actually track them, versus in a lot of other companies - countries you can't do that. So I think that's something we need to consider as we move forward. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Ben Waber, interesting. Thank you very much for being with us today. Ben Waber, president and CEO of Sociometric Solutions. And our thanks also to Shankar Vendantam, who's a correspondent for NPR's science desk. And well, be busy on Friday night, won't you? SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: I will indeed, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Thanks very much.

Conventional wisdom holds that happier workers are also more productive. But precisely how to boost staff morale has eluded many employers. But some researchers say there are specific ways companies can build a better workplace, from moving coffee stations to increasing diversity. Ben Waber, president and CEO, Sociometric Solutions Shankar Vendantam, science correspondent, NPR

Es ist eine Binsenweisheit, dass zufriedenere Arbeitnehmer auch produktiver sind. Aber wie genau man die Arbeitsmoral der Mitarbeiter steigern kann, ist vielen Arbeitgebern ein Rätsel. Einige Forscher sind jedoch der Meinung, dass es konkrete Möglichkeiten gibt, wie Unternehmen einen besseren Arbeitsplatz schaffen können, von der Einrichtung von Kaffeestationen bis hin zur Förderung der Vielfalt. Ben Waber, Präsident und CEO, Sociometric Solutions\nShankar Vendantam, Wissenschaftskorrespondent, NPR

社交解决方案公司总裁兼CEO本·瓦贝尔和NPR科学记者香卡·韦丹丹表示，传统观点认为，快乐的员工也更有生产力。但是，如何提高员工的士气却一直困扰着许多雇主。但一些研究人员表示，公司可以通过一些具体的方式来打造更好的工作场所，比如移动咖啡站，增加多样性等。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: It's Tuesday and time to read from your comments. Liz Holgreen(ph) listened to our conversation on genetic tests and the new choices for many soon-to-be parents. An email from Michigan: This technology is a blessing and a curse. I'm 25 weeks into my first pregnancy. I just learned that my husband has a chromosomal abnormality. While the baby I'm currently pregnant with is most likely just fine, this could affect future pregnancies. We want more children, and this will do nothing to affect our desire to have more. This knowledge has only created more worry for me. I personally do not feel as if I would be able to terminate a pregnancy if any of our future children were to have this severe genetic condition. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We also talked last week about the many challenges facing single parents, most of the moms. Tim wrote from Houston: As the child of a single parent, I would say single parents need to make the little time these families have together memorable. It only happened twice in 12 years, but I'll never forget the days my mom and I played hooky and went to lunch and a movie. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We heard from several of you yesterday about our use of the term, illegal immigrant, including Karen Engle(ph) of Oakland: I am tired of hearing the term illegal applied to human beings. Wouldn't undocumented be a little kinder? NEAL CONAN, HOST: And a correction. I said yesterday that Reginald Denny died after he was pulled from his truck during the Los Angeles race riots 20 years ago and beaten. Denny was severely injured and underwent any number of operations, but he's still alive. He appeared on daytime television at one point and publicly forgave his attackers. I apologize for the mistake. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Finally, during our interview with two of the people behind the new comedy review, "Old Jews Telling Jokes," we asked you to send us the one joke that defines your community or group, and you responded. Here are a couple from Twitter we didn't get a chance to get on the air. From Feritz Steinmetz(ph) and Eric A. Myer(ph): A programmer's spouse says, go get a gallon of milk. If they have eggs, get a dozen. So he comes home with 12 gallons of milk. And from Andrew Schleigelmilsch(ph): How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but it has to want to change. And from Andrew Schleigelmilsch(ph): If you have a correction, comment, question or a joke for us, the best way to reach us is by email. The address is talk@npr.org. Please, let us know where you're writing from and give us some help on how to pronounce your name. If you're on Twitter, you can follow us there, @totn. And from Andrew Schleigelmilsch(ph): It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

NPR's Neal Conan reads from listener comments on previous show topics including the challenges facing single parents, difficult choices raised by advances in genetic testing and the jokes that define a community or group.

Neal Conan von NPR liest Hörerkommentare zu früheren Themen der Sendung vor, darunter die Herausforderungen, mit denen Alleinerziehende konfrontiert sind, schwierige Entscheidungen, die sich aus den Fortschritten bei Gentests ergeben, und die Witze, die eine Gemeinschaft oder Gruppe definieren.

NPR的尼尔·柯南选读了听众对之前各期节目主题的评论，评论包括：单亲父母所面临的挑战、基因检测进步带来的艰难选择，以及定义社区或群体的笑话。

IRA FLATOW, HOST: Ever wonder why you worked so hard to avoid the lasagna at dinner only to give in to your craving for not one but two helpings of cake for dessert? Well, new research may hold some answers to this vexing question. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Psychology confirms what we've been - what we've known for some time, and that is each of us has an internal reservoir of self-control. We have a reservoir of self-control that it depletes. Every time we resist a temptation, we use a little bit of it up. IRA FLATOW, HOST: But for the first time, researchers have taken pictures of the brain to show what was happening when a person exerts and then loses self-control. Dr. William Hedgcock was a co-author of the study. He is a neuroscientist and assistant professor of marketing at the University of Iowa. He joins us from Denver. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. IRA FLATOW, HOST: DR. WILLIAM HEDGCOCK: Oh, thanks for having me. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, first, let me back up a bit because I think it would be surprising to most people to learn that we actually have a reservoir of self-control. HEDGCOCK: Sure. So this is a theory called regulatory resource depletion. And like you said, when people exert self-control, what we see is people have a hard time exerting self-control later, so this idea of one resource may be, you know, not intuitive. But I think most of us have had this sort of experience where you exert self-control at one point and then end up succumbing to temptation later. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. And where is that center of self-control? HEDGCOCK: Well, what we're finding is that the center seems to be the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, so it's an area that's sort of near the temple and underneath the temple of your head. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hmm. And how do we know that that's where it is? HEDGCOCK: Well, so we ran an fMRI study where we had subjects come into the scanner. They first exerted self-control, and we saw them having activation in areas like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex. And this is what, you know, we would have expected. Then we had them exert self-control later on a subsequent task, and we saw less activity in this dorsolateral prefrontal cortex area. IRA FLATOW, HOST: So it had been depleted in - some of their self control was gone. HEDGCOCK: Yeah. So we saw behaviorally that they had less self-control, and that seemed to be correlated with the fact they had less activity in that area. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Now, is the reservoir a reservoir of chemicals? Is it a reservoir of neurons? What exactly is the reservoir? HEDGCOCK: So we don't really know that yet. We do know that there's less activity in that area. It seems unlikely that it's a neurotransmitter, for instance, but we would need some follow-up studies to find out exactly why is it less active there. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. And what kind of test do you do when you test people for their self-control? Do you put pie in front of them and say, you can only have one bite or what? HEDGCOCK: Well, that certainly - some people do that. So we'll put people in front of brownies or something and then see later, would they like to choose brownies versus a healthy snack or - also, we test them on things like, will they perform well on a cognitive task. But in the scanner, we couldn't do that. It's difficult to, you know, put a pie next to a person in the scanner. HEDGCOCK: So what we did was something a little bit more sterile than that. We had them look at a fixation point on a screen, and we flash words underneath the fixation. And the words would move around and - but they're very close to the fixation. We told subjects to ignore them and definitely not read them, but this was difficult or, for the most part, impossible for subjects to do. So it required self-control on their part to not read the words. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Don't think of pink elephants. HEDGCOCK: Yeah. Well, so that's another version of - or another way to manipulate self-control. You could have them not think about elephants, which is difficult to do once we mention it to you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right. 1-800-989-8255. Talking with Dr. William Hedgcock about exerting self-control. And so can you actually tell at the moment by looking at the scan when, uh-oh, they've lost their self-control? HEDGCOCK: Well, what we saw was sort of a gradual depletion over time. We didn't see a particular timeframe. And by the way, our subjects sometimes were able to exert self-control later. It's not like they completely lost it. They were just less able. They just occasionally would succumb to temptation more frequently than when they were not depleted. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Let's see if we can get a phone call in here from Bill in Loma Linda, California. Hi, Bill. BILL: Hi there. Thank you for taking my call. I love your show. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. BILL: I'm really interested in this subject, neuroscience and self-control. And you guys - it's fascinating. I was wondering just - if your guest speaker had any idea or any speculation on how we can maybe improve self-control or modulate the self-control, you know, maybe modeling it in an animal study and then improving self-control. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, because you got to - you're going to bet I'm sure, and let me ask Dr. Hedgcock about this, that the pharmaceutical companies would be very interested in a pill, right? HEDGCOCK: Well, I think the pharmaceutical, you know, companies and also, you know, just people or policy makers in general. You know, we just ran a quick behavioral experiment to see what would happen and it seems pretty simple, but what we had people do is think about ways they would actually execute control. So we went to a gymnasium. We had people coming out who had this sort of fitness goal or eating healthy goal, and we would just have them think about ways that they would execute that. So come to the gym three times a week or, you know, eat healthy and not - versus unhealthy foods. And that would slightly improve it. HEDGCOCK: We don't think that - we don't think that it replenished the resource, so to speak, but it was sort of a crutch. It would just make it easier to exert control. But, as you mentioned, this idea of pharmacological interventions, it, you know, it's too early to tell exactly what would be useful. But these brain images provide us at least with some direction on where we should look. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Do you know how it's replenished? Did you image participants' brains after a period of time to find out? HEDGCOCK: So no, we didn't do that. It would seem to take a while. Right now, all we know that will help you is to take a break. So just do something that doesn't require self-control. You know, if you take a nap or if you are somewhere where its easy to exert self-control so that you don't sort of tire it out, it seems that people are able to replenish it that way. IRA FLATOW, HOST: I guess it's sort of like the - what people tell you if, you know, take yourself out of that situation that's giving you a loss of self-control. HEDGCOCK: Yeah, that's correct. And not only will it help you right there at that situation, but it might help you later when you're trying to exert self-control in a later time when it's harder to avoid temptation. IRA FLATOW, HOST: So have you found that you can practice self-control? HEDGCOCK: So I have not personally run that study, but we do know other researchers have looked at that and found that if you practice self-control, you're able, actually, to strengthen this or improve your resource so that you'll have a better ability to not wear out over time. IRA FLATOW, HOST: It's like the muscle theory, right? If you use your muscle over and over again, you strengthen it. HEDGCOCK: Yeah. At least in these two ways, this sort of muscle analogy seems to fit with how your regulatory resources work. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Let's go to Austin in Sand Point, Alaska. Hi, Austin. AUSTIN: Hey... IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hey there. AUSTIN: ...thanks for taking my call. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're welcome. Go ahead. AUSTIN: Hey. I had - I study theology as a pastor, and I was curious: did you notice anything like correlations between people with the religious convictions and increased self-control or decreased self-control or anything like that? HEDGCOCK: You know, I'm sorry to say, we did not end up looking at that - that's an interesting question - things like, you know, religiosity or personality traits or gender. Honestly, the things that we've looked at, when we have looked at those, they don't tend to be a very big predictor. But I haven't specifically looked at religion. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Thanks for calling, Austin. Can you - if you look at an image of the brain - a brain scan of somebody, can you tell from looking at the scan how much self-control they have or have - how much reservoir they have left? HEDGCOCK: No, we can't do that. I'm sure people would be interested. You know, just because an area of the brain is bigger, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be, you know, more, you know, stronger, let's say. So, a large DLPFC or small, it doesn't tell us that people are better able at exerting self-control. I suppose the only media exception to that would be if someone has brain damage to an area, so particularly taking out that area, then you might be able to predict that they'd be very bad at self-control. IRA FLATOW, HOST: We have a tweet from Kaye McKenzie(ph), who says: I wonder if this could help alcoholics, and the like, to resist temptation? HEDGCOCK: So things like alcoholism are a little bit different. But certainly, with the idea of when they are trying to resist temptation that this could help them out. IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. I'm Ira Flatow talking with Dr. William Hedgcock, author - co-author of a study about self-control. Let's see if we can get to another phone call or two. But before I get to that, and the second part of your study, you looked at ways to intervene and make people aware of the consequences of the choices that they were making. Were they less likely to lose self-control with this kind of intervention if they knew the consequences? HEDGCOCK: So if we had them think about consequences, it did not seem to help them too much. On the other hand, if we had them think about ways that they would actually execute control, it did help them. And in particular, we had them choosing from tempting versus, you know, healthy snacks, and we saw that their snack behavior would change if they thought about ways that they could make better decisions. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Did you try to distract them at all and see if that would bring self-control, a little bit, back? HEDGCOCK: No. So we did not look at distracting them later. Often, we would use a distraction sort of thing to diminish their ability to their self-control. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Go the phones, to Jamie(ph) in Cleveland. Hi, Jamie. JAMIE: Hi. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi there. JAMIE: Thank you for taking my call. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're welcome. JAMIE: I remember hearing an article on NPR, once, that - about a study to a - with dieters. And they had people think about very specifically eating M&M's, and the crunching and the taste and swallowing. And then afterwards, the control group that was not told to think about eating M&M's had way too bit - ate way more M&M's than the people who thought about it. And I was just wondering what you think the self-control, and if you can trigger a brain into having more self-control by thinking - by making it think we've already given it. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Sure. HEDGCOCK: Actually, I believe - if I'm thinking of the same study you're talking about, I believe what they're doing is satiating people. So basically, if you're imagining eating, you know, M&M after M&M, eventually, even though you're just thinking about it, it can make you start to think that you're getting tired of eating them. So this sort of, you know, perceptual satiation is happening. So, you know, if you had them, for instance, eat just two or three, it might actually make them more - make it harder to resist temptation. But after eating 30 or 40, they start to think, well, I don't find these very appetizing anymore. I'd prefer not to eat them. So it's definitely possible to sort of mentally, to convince yourself to eat more or less that way. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. Let me see if we get more question from Molly in Washington, D.C. Hi, Molly. MOLLY: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my call. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Mm-hmm. MOLLY: So I read a book, last year, called, "Willpower," exactly on this topic, and its central premise was that you can improve that depleted resource of willpower/self-control, as we're calling it in this study here, through glucose. And I was wondering if the author could talk about that. They proved, in my mind, pretty positively that a regular intake of glucose, not necessarily super sugary substance, but that base, I guess, willpower generator, could really improve your discipline. IRA FLATOW, HOST: All right. Let's get an answer. Thanks for the question. MOLLY: Sure. HEDGCOCK: So I believe that that book and the study was someone named Roy, excuse me, Roy Baumeister did that research. And they have found that if you have people drink sugary substance, that can end up increasing people's self-control. Our study does not directly address that. I guess, our results are consistent with that, and that we less activation in the brain and that could hypothetically be from lack of glucose. But at this point, all we can say is that there's just less activity in that part, and we don't know why. IRA FLATOW, HOST: As an assistant professor of marketing, do you think that marketing people would love them to convince you how to lose self-control and go on and buy their product? HEDGCOCK: Yeah, so it's certainly possible. That's one way that marketers could use this information. Actually, there's just as many marketers who would like to improve your self-control, so you could think about, you know, fitness clubs or diet companies, or, you know, particularly finance companies or retirement savings. You know, they could only make money if you actually do exert self-control, and we hoped they'd find it useful to figure out and how to improve that. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Hedgcock, thank you very much for taking time to be with us. HEDGCOCK: Oh, thanks for having me. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Have a good weekend. William Hedgcock, neuroscientist and assistant professor of marketing at the University of Iowa, also co-author of a study in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. IRA FLATOW, HOST: If you missed any part of our program, go to our website, go to iTunes, subscribe to our Podcast, audio and video, and go to our website at SCIENCE FRIDAY, and take scifri along with you on our iPhone and Android apps. And we continue a weeklong discussion on Twitter, @scifri. And also growing, growing audience at our Facebook page at scifri, and you're welcome to join us there and on our website at sciencefriday.com. Have a great weekend. We'll see you next week. I'm Ira Flatow in New York.

Ever wonder why you worked so hard to avoid the lasagna at dinner only to give into your craving for dessert? Researchers say that's because our internal reservoir of self-control can be depleted. Neuroscientist William Hedgcock discusses use of fMRI to show what happens in the brain when a person loses self-control.

Haben Sie sich jemals gefragt, warum Sie sich beim Abendessen so angestrengt haben, um die Lasagne zu vermeiden, und dann doch dem Verlangen nach einem Dessert nachgegeben haben? Forscher sagen, dass das daran liegt, dass unser inneres Reservoir an Selbstbeherrschung erschöpft sein kann. Der Neurowissenschaftler William Hedgcock erörtert den Einsatz von fMRI, um zu zeigen, was im Gehirn passiert, wenn eine Person die Selbstkontrolle verliert.

你有没有想过，为什么晚餐时你如此努力地避开千层面，只为了满足你对甜点的渴望？研究人员表示，这是因为我们内在的自我控制能力可能会被耗尽。神经科学家威廉·赫德科克讨论了利用功能性核磁共振成像，显示当一个人失去自我控制时，大脑会发生什么。

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Sri Lanka is mourning the more than 300 people who were killed on Easter Sunday when suicide bombers targeted churches in Western hotels. We'll hear more about the Christian communities in Sri Lanka in a few minutes. First, we turn to the group claiming responsibility for the attacks, ISIS. It has released a video purporting to show some of the attackers swearing allegiance to the group in front of the black ISIS flag. For more on this, we're joined by former FBI special agent Ali Soufan. He's investigated many cases of terrorism, including 9/11. Welcome back to the program. ALI SOUFAN: Great to be with you. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: So as we mentioned, ISIS has claimed responsibility. Do you find that claim credible? ALI SOUFAN: Possible - you know, there is no official evidence that support ISIS' claims so far. You know, ISIS, as we know, have a history of claiming attacks that they were not responsible for. They even claimed the Las Vegas shootings, if you remember. But the attack itself have the hallmark of a Salafi jihadi international group - at least international support. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: In what way? What do you see that suggests that? ALI SOUFAN: First of all, you have multiple attacks happening at multiple locations against targets - different targets - churches and the hotels. We've seen before attacks against churches. We've seen attacks against hotels. But we didn't see this combination. The complexity of that attack indicates that it's carried out by a local group. But the complexity also indicates that this local group have international support to carry out the plot. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: As you note, ISIS is quick to claim any mass killing that generates headlines. Is there something strategic about claiming this attack in Sri Lanka? ALI SOUFAN: ISIS is trying to take advantage of the sectarian tensions that exists in Sri Lanka, and that sectarian tension is not only in Sri Lanka. It's in South Asia in general. And as you're familiar, you know, Sri Lanka is an incredibly diverse country, ethnically and religiously. And it was engulfed in decades of war with the Tamil Tiger and still have significant tension along cultural and religious lines between the majority Buddhist population and the Christians and Hindu and Muslim populations. So ISIS is trying to create divisions and capitalize on these divisions to recruit more people and to find other areas to operate in after they lost Iraq and Syria. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Just a month ago, U.S.-backed forces announced the defeat of ISIS in Syria. And as you discussed, the group has lost all of the land it once claimed for its caliphate. If this attack in Sri Lanka is connected to ISIS, would it tell us anything about their potential strength at this point? ALI SOUFAN: Well, back in 2015, we did a report on the so-called Islamic State. And we said that with all its bravado, the Islamic State is going to, you know, morph down from a proto-state to an underground terrorist organization. And that's exactly what's happening. Maybe ISIS was defeated physically in Iraq and Syria, and that is a very important step. But ISIS still have the ability to inspire people to act on its behalf. And only when we defeat ISIS in the hearts and minds of the vulnerable and the disenfranchised, then we can start to win the war against them. ALI SOUFAN: Defeating them physically just in Iraq and Syria is not enough. Remember, we defeated al-Qaida physically in Afghanistan. But al-Qaida is growing in places like Sahel, in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen, in Syria, in Somalia. So the battle of the hearts and minds is as important - even more important than the physical battle on the streets and on the land. AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Ali Soufan is a former FBI counterterrorism agent. He's also founder of The Soufan Group. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ALI SOUFAN: Thank you.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with terrorism expert and former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Ali Soufan about the ISIS claim of responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka.

Audie Cornish von NPR spricht mit dem Terrorismusexperten und ehemaligen FBI-Aufsichtsspezialisten Ali Soufan über die Verantwortung des IS für die Anschläge am Ostersonntag in Sri Lanka.

NPR新闻的奥蒂·康沃尔采访恐怖主义专家、前联邦调查局监察特别探员阿里·苏凡，双方就ISIS声称对斯里兰卡复活节周日袭击事件负责进行讨论。

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. Our multimedia editor Flora Lichtman is here to join us now to talk about the flame challenge. Welcome, Flora. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Thanks, Ira. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Remember back in March when we talked to Alan Alda? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Of course, who could forget? IRA FLATOW, HOST: And he told us about the flame contest. He challenged scientists around the world to explain what a flame is in a clear, engaging and meaningful way so that even an 11-year-old like he was when he wondered about... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Or me... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: ...could understand. IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...to talk about - well, more than 800 - 800 - entries... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Wow. IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...later, the results of the contest are in, and joining us now for an update is Alan Alda. In addition to being an actor, director and screenwriter, he's also a founding member of the Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University. Welcome back. ALAN ALDA: Thank you. Hello, Ira. How are you? IRA FLATOW, HOST: Tell us about what this voyage was like of getting all the way to the final contestant. ALAN ALDA: You know, it was amazing. I think that we expected maybe at the most a couple of hundred responses. And what happened was you picked up on it, ABC News picked up on it, The New York Times, various news organizations. In fact, I was even interviewed by a radio station in Ireland. Everybody picked up on the idea which helped get people's interest so we had a lot of scientists around the world, all different countries, entering the contest. And then school teachers signed up their classes in - I don't know how many countries all over America and many other countries. ALAN ALDA: So we - it really became a worldwide thing which surprised us. And then the quality of some of the responses were just - was just wonderful. And the response of the kids was amazing. We have videos of kids discussing the entries. And one of the most surprising things to me was, while they rated entries highly if they were videos, if they had humor in them and if they were easy to understand, they rated them highly on those criteria, but they demoted them, they took points off if there wasn't enough information. ALAN ALDA: They kept talking about how they wanted information and how they needed to learn and remember from these entries what a flame was. That was very heartening to me, and I think it should be instructive to scientists too. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. Because the kids didn't want it dumbed down. ALAN ALDA: No, they really didn't. In fact, one kid said, you know, we're 11. We're not 7. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So the kids were the judges, right? Did they actually do the selecting? ALAN ALDA: They did. They did. They did everything except check it for accuracy. So we had a number of scientists who were qualified to check the entries for accuracy before they went to the kids who did the entire judging process. They were in charge of it. They narrowed it down to a group of finalists in the first round, and then it was sent out. The finalists were sent out to them again, and they chose the winner. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And what made the cream of the crop, the cream of the crop? ALAN ALDA: Well, I think it was clarity, engagement, explaining difficult words. As a matter of fact, this entry uses three or four words that are not familiar to most of us who haven't been trained in science. And the kids loved it because they learned what these words meant in an engaging way. So they were not satisfied with some kind of a metaphor that just sort of generally related to what the process was. They wanted something about the process in - of the flame in specifics. And they got it in the most engaging way in this winner of the contest. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Should we - I think we should bring on the winner because actually the winner of the contest is this week's Video Pick of the Week. We couldn't pass this one up. The video was just too good. It had a cupcake in it and an original song. ALAN ALDA: And a guy chained to the wall in hell. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: In hell. ALAN ALDA: Talk about flames. ALAN ALDA: He went right to the source. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So we have Ben Ames here with us. He's the one who made this video. He's a Ph.D. candidate in quantum optics at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. Welcome to the program. And congratulations, Ben. BEN AMES: Hey. Thank you very much. And I have to say it's great to be on the show. I'm a big fan, always have been. IRA FLATOW, HOST: How did you hear about the contest? BEN AMES: Well, you know, we've come full circle. I heard about it on the SCIENCE FRIDAY podcast. I was working in my lab. I'm an experimental physicist, so I was fixing some problems with my setup and listening to some old podcasts that were filtering through my computer. And lo and behold, I fell upon the contest this way, so. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And... ALAN ALDA: How much time did you have between then and the contest? BEN AMES: Ha, ha. I only had - I had less than two weeks. So I heard about the contest... BEN AMES: ...that were filtering through my computer, and lo and behold, fell up on the contest this way. So... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And... ALAN ALDA: How much time did you have between then and... BEN AMES: Ha, ha. I... ALAN ALDA: ...and the contest? BEN AMES: I only - I had less than two weeks. So I heard about the contest, and I thought, if I'm going to do this, I've got to take work off. And so that's what I did. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So what prompted you to actually take work off and do all this work? I mean, you can tell there's a lot of craft and care put into this. BEN AMES: You know, I have a genuine - I think I always have had a genuine desire to understand the natural world around me, and I think a lot of kids generally do. And - but as a kid, you know, my science educators were great, but for some reason, they just - nothing really resonated with me. And I knew that I wanted to make something that I would have liked to have heard or watched as an 11-year-old. And so, you know, I'm still quite ignorant in physics, which is what I study. And so I like to communicate to others the way that I like to be communicated to. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And you have a background in arts, to some degree, too, right? BEN AMES: Yeah, I do. I spent my high school doing visual arts, of kind of - if you ask friends of mine from high school, you know, or tell them that I'm a physicist now, they'll laugh, because I was doing theater and art and then music. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: We - in fact, your video features a song. BEN AMES: Yeah. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And I think we'd like to play a little clip of it. BEN AMES: OK, great. BEN AMES: (Singing) The fuel loses mass. It turns to a gas. Before the next change is through, some atoms shine blue. When the process is complete, it gives off heat. Extra carbon will glow red, orange, yellow. The fuel loses mass. It turns to a gas. Before the next change is through, some atoms shine blue. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Where did this song come from? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It seems perfect. BEN AMES: You know, I was sitting in an electronics class at the University of Utah during my undergraduate. And I really wasn't focusing too much on the lecture at hand, but I was thinking about how I wanted to get home and play this song, this little riff that was going through my mind. And so I did. I just recorded it with Garage Band and a cheap, little $100 guitar that I had, you know. And it just on my hard drive for four years, and I had no real use for it until I heard about the contest and I knew I wanted to have music involved. And so I just had to add some catchy lyrics, and there have you have it. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: He had it in the can. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Alan, is this how they do it in show business? ALAN ALDA: You know, I - he could rule show business if he decides to get out of quantum physics. BEN AMES: No thanks. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: We were thinking the same thing. ALAN ALDA: Actually, show business is a lot harder than quantum physics, but you could do it, anyway. ALAN ALDA: He's an extraordinary artist in this. He gives a great narration. He plays the part beautifully. He's got a song that he wrote. And he's a great teacher, because this song can - is the summary of the video, but all of these ideas in that song are so fully explained earlier in the video that you get it. It's not - these are not foreign terms to you by now. These are things you just want to hear over and over again to the music. And kids love it because they - they report that it helps them remember the idea. The song goes through their head all day, whether they want to think about it or not. BEN AMES: It could be a bad thing, right? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You know, this reminds me of "Schoolhouse Rock." It seems in that genre. BEN AMES: Yeah. You know, I didn't watch a whole lot of "Schoolhouse Rock" as a kid. I remember it coming on in-between Saturday morning cartoons. But, you know, the really - the - I wanted music because my wife, she still sings this song that she learned when she was in seventh grade. She can name every country on the continent of Africa from this song that she learned, and it stuck with her. And I thought, hey, if I can do something like that with flames, and then that would be a good thing. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Did the idea of using a Lego, a boxing ring come to you right away? I mean... BEN AMES: You know, not - Legos, maybe it did. You know, as a kid, you see all these complicated diagrams of molecules, and I tried to actually - not even - well, actually, I didn't. I didn't use the word molecule, because I wanted to trim the science fat as, you know, as much as I possibly could. And so, you know, molecules and atoms, they're the building blocks. And so I thought, hey, why not just use building blocks? BEN AMES: And originally, I had - you know, my video was like 12 minutes long, over 12 minutes long. And every single bit of my explanation included a few more minutes of explanation, including the chemiluminescence part. I didn't have the fighting ring. I had a guy looking down at the table and these - the hydrocarbon and the two oxygen molecules were playing a game of leapfrog, and they would expose these free radicals that would emit light. And I looked at it in the end, and I thought, OK. This is kind of overboard. And so I just covered the whole thing (unintelligible) and tried to get the basic idea across. ALAN ALDA: What I can't get - I can't imagine that you made it an even longer video in the less than two weeks that you had. BEN AMES: Just be grateful you didn't see that bit, that version. IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's the director cut, right? BEN AMES: No, I don't know. I don't know. ALAN ALDA: The next thing he's going to do is "Physics: The Musical." IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, that's a good point. Can you do more of this? BEN AMES: Well... IRA FLATOW, HOST: I mean, Ben, if we ask you to do more, would you do some for our website, a video? BEN AMES: Well, you know what? It's - this was such a thrill ride for me because it really, in a unique way, combined both of my passions, and I had never before been involved in something where my mind was so fully engaged. It was a complete rush. And, you know, I don't know what the future holds for it, but in either case, just for the sheer thrill of it alone, absolutely, I'll be doing some more. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Well, yeah, I hope we can see them on sciencefriday.com. And everyone who's listening should go check this out, too. This really is a great video. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Right. We've only played a little bit of the music, but as Alan said, there's a six minutes in front of that music of incredible animation, explanation, description. I'm running out of itions(ph). FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You learn a lot. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And you really do learn a lot in a fun way out on this thing. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yeah. ALAN ALDA: And it's a great beginning for this whole Flame Challenge idea. I mean, this has set the bar really high. And next year, we're going to have another question that will be generated by 11-year-olds themselves, and they'll vote on which question they want it to be, and, you know, what the final question is going to be. And maybe Ben will win that again. BEN AMES: I was told I can't. I was told I couldn't enter. So... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Alan... IRA FLATOW, HOST: So this was your - so you're not coming up with the idea, Alan, next year? This is going to be what the kids want... ALAN ALDA: Right. I mean, we had a real 11-year-old come up with this question this time. That 11-year-old was me when I was 11. And I want to see what 11-year-olds come up with. I must say, we announced Ben as the winner at an event, at the World Science Festival. And that same day, we said, would everybody in the audience take the card we've given you and write what your question might be for the next Flame Challenge? And the first one that came back was: What is time? IRA FLATOW, HOST: It was... ALAN ALDA: That was pretty stiff. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, a little (unintelligible). You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY, on NPR. I'm Ira Flatow, with Flora Lichtman, talking with Ben Ames and Alan Alda about the Flame Challenge and the results. And, Ben, you think you can set up a studio to do these? You said you did this sort of in your garage or your basement? ALAN ALDA: Tell him about where you did it. BEN AMES: You know, I live up in the mountains of Austria, and I have this little cellar that - that's below my - the, you know, the ground floor of my home. And so I cut up this old mattress and I built a little sound booth so I could - and I actually went and I spent money I didn't have on a microphone, hoping that I could return it when I was done with it, which I couldn't. So now I have this mike sitting on my desk that I have to use again. But, yeah, I kind of locked myself away in a basement for over week, just animating and recording and playing music. It was a lot of fun, but I only got a few hours of sleep. ALAN ALDA: Not even George Lucas did that. BEN AMES: I don't know. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Alan Alda, do you think that scientists are looking for this kind of outlet? I mean, this wasn't for the cash and fame and fortune, probably, that all these people submitted these great videos. I mean, Ben's a great example. ALAN ALDA: You know, there may be a creative side or an artistic side. I know there's a creative side to artists to - pardon me - there's a creative side to scientists already, but there may be an artistic side, too, waiting to break free. And I think we're finding that at The Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook, where we teach improvising, we teach workshops in improvisation to scientists to get them to be more personal when they're giving a personal presentation, and they eat it up. They love it. It's - first of all, it's freeing for anybody, but I think, very often, they don't get a chance to do something like that, bowing to the understandable rigors of their profession. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Ben, do you think that because you study quantum physic - which is such a hard thing to explain to lay people - that you had practice in explanation? And now you have hit upon something you're good at in explaining these things. BEN AMES: I don't know if the - if I've had a lot of practice at explaining this to a general audience. I mentioned earlier, in earlier interviews, that I try to explain this to family, and the first question that get back are with regards to light sabers and the possibility to choosing - achieving things on "Star Wars" and stuff. So I don't know if I'm doing a great job at it, but this was a definitely a great lesson in how to do it. I really try to think about, what does a kid - what are the essential things I would need to know, and what would get me excited? The cool thing of physics is you can kind of take it down to a simplified level, you know. Just on a fundamental level, you're talking about little billiard balls, you know, that are just - have a lot of energy bouncing off each other. And so, you know, I think it's definitely something I'd like to continue doing for sure. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Wow. ALAN ALDA: Did you have any - where you tempted at all to get into quantum effects in your description? BEN AMES: Well, I mean - yeah - I mean, yes and no. I mean, so I talk about, you know, this - these - during these reactions, you get this single atom that spits out light. ALAN ALDA: Yeah. BEN AMES: Look, you know, that alone is a quantum effect, but I definitely didn't want to talk about anything deeper than that. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Well, Ben, congratulations to you, and we're waiting for your next one. We will feature it up on our website. This video's up on our website @sciencefriday.com. You're welcome to become our video producer extraordinaire... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: In the field. IRA FLATOW, HOST: ...in the field. And good luck with - good luck to you. ALAN ALDA: And congratulations (unintelligible). IRA FLATOW, HOST: Alan Alda, the director, screenwriter and founding member of The Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook. We'll wait to see what happens next, Alan, which you come up with next. ALAN ALDA: I'm looking forward to it. It's exciting. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thanks for being with us today. ALAN ALDA: Bye-bye. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And we're going to leave you with the music with Ben Ames' winning entry. And with me is Flora Lichtman. Thank you, Flora. That was a great video. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Thanks, Ira. IRA FLATOW, HOST: It's our Video Pick of the Week. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: You can't miss this one. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You can't. It's up there on our website. They're usually - they're what, three - three or so minutes long, and this is a... FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Double feature. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: It's really long, but - and you'll watch it all the way through. It takes place in hell. What more could you want? IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yes, it's a guy came to a wall in hell learning about flames, right? That all fits together.

Alan Alda challenged scientists to explain what a flame is to an 11-year-old. Three months and more than 800 entries later he is back with the winner of the contest. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the winning entry and why the contest was an effective exercise in science communication.

Alan Alda forderte Wissenschaftler auf, einem 11-Jährigen zu erklären, was eine Flamme ist. Drei Monate und mehr als 800 Beiträge später ist er mit dem Gewinner des Wettbewerbs zurück. Ira Flatow und seine Gäste diskutieren über den Siegerbeitrag und darüber, warum der Wettbewerb eine effektive Übung in Wissenschaftskommunikation war.

艾伦·阿尔达向科学家们提出挑战，要他们向一个11岁的孩子解释火焰是什么。三个月后，超过800个参赛作品，他带着比赛的获胜者回来了。艾拉·弗拉托和嘉宾讨论获奖作品以及为什么该比赛是科学传播的有效练习。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yesterday, a judge sentenced a Massachusetts teenager to spend a year behind bars for his role in a fatal crash police say happened while he was texting. His conviction is one of the first under a new state law that makes it a criminal offense to injure someone while texting and driving. Thirty-nine states banned texting while driving. Ten states prohibit talking on a hand-held phone. Thirty-two have bans on cell phone use by novice drivers. A number of studies show that it's dangerous and sometimes deadly to talk or text on the - while driving, but a lot of drivers do it, anyway. NEAL CONAN, HOST: If you're among them, what would make you stop? Give us a call: 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. A national survey found today that more than half of high school seniors admit to texting or emailing while driving. Fifty-eight percent of seniors say they did so behind the wheel, according to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And meanwhile, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that he has released a blueprint for ending distracted driving that offers comprehensive strategy to address the growing and dangerous practice, and announced $2.4 million in federal support for California and Delaware to expand the department's Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other pilot enforcement campaign to reduce distracted driving. The campaign includes encouraging the remaining 11 states without distracted driving laws to enact and enforce critical legislation. NEAL CONAN, HOST: It challenges the auto industry to adopt new and future guidelines for technology to reduce the potential for distraction. And the $2.4 million for Delaware and California stems from the - stems from success of efforts like Click It or Ticket that combines good laws with - this is a press release - and effective enforcement and a strong public education campaign. It mirrors the approached used in small-scale demonstration projects in 2011 in Hartford, Connecticut and Syracuse, New York, which found dramatic declines in distracted driving in the two communities tested, with texting while driving dropping 72 percent in Hartford and 32 percent in Syracuse. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So if you would - if you're one of those who texts while driving or talks on a cell phone, what would make you stop? 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. And let's start with Leslie, Leslie with us from Southfield in Michigan. Leslie? LESLIE: Yes? NEAL CONAN, HOST: You're on the air. Go ahead, please. LESLIE: Yes, I have solved the problem of how to text and drive. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And how is that? LESLIE: My 10-year-old secretary does the texting, while I dictate. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I see. So you have a small worker there beside you to do the work for you. LESLIE: Right. She actually - when the phone rings, she takes the call... UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Can Johnny(ph) come home with us? LESLIE: Hold on a second. Yes. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: (unintelligible) LESLIE: When I get off the phone. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: (unintelligible) LESLIE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Who are you talking to? LESLIE: This is the 10-year-old. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Who are you talking to? NEAL CONAN, HOST: I gathered, yeah. LESLIE: (unintelligible) will not take a phone call if I'm on the phone. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Who are you talking to? NEAL CONAN, HOST: She's talking to America. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Who are you - hey, mommy... LESLIE: You're talking to America. Say, hello, America. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: But - on the radio? LESLIE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: Hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Leslie. We'll let you get back to your distraction. LESLIE: All right. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks very much for the call. We appreciate it. This, of course, is a very serious issue. That wasn't a very serious call. I worked in emergency rooms for several years, writes Mike Little(ph) in Westland, Oregon. I worked in emergency rooms for several years. Try that for a few nights, and then thinking about being a distracted driver. Let's see if we'd go next to Dennis, and Dennis on the line with us from San Angelo in Texas. DENNIS: Hi, there. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. DENNIS: Yeah. The truck drivers have been nailed with a $2,500 fine now that went into effect in January if they're caught using anything other than a hands-free device. And I would say, if they're going to that to them, why not do it to the four-wheelers, as well? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Are you a truck driver? DENNIS: Yes, I am. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And is that kind of a fine persuasive? DENNIS: Extremely. And if you don't use a hands-free device, that's a $2,500 for you and for your company, up to 11,000. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that same kind of a fine for - I have and not heard that expression - four-wheelers, that might be persuasive too. DENNIS: I would think so. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Well, Dennis, drive carefully. Thanks very much. DENNIS: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Nikola(ph) in Grass Valley, California: I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can drive and text. A friend of my daughter lost his father to a driver who was texting. And my teens both know that if they were to text and drive, they will lose their driving privileges for three months or their phones for three months. This is a real danger. It should be treated to the full extent of the law. What text message could possibly be worth the life of another human being? Hit them the same way you hit drinking drivers, please. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is from a piece by Tanya Mohn that's published in the "Wheels" column of The New York Times: Bridgestone America survey commissioned by Bridgestone Americas, found a disconnect between teens' knowledge of hazardous behaviors and avoidance of those activities. Many young drivers are in denial about their distracted driving tendencies. Girls are far more likely to engage in distracted behavior behind the wheel than boys. Parents often set bad examples. These impressions were shared in response to the question: Given that driving while distracted can be dangerous, why do you do it? Some young drivers considered themselves safe drivers simply because they hadn't been involved in an accident or hadn't been ticketed. Among other findings, about a third of respondents admitted to reading texts on occasion while driving, a quarter of respondents said talking on the phone while driving was not dangerous. And two-thirds said that they considered themselves very safe drivers. Perhaps the most serious duplicity, however, was reserved for parents. These impressions were shared in response to the question: Most respondents said their parents engaged in more potentially distracting activities while driving than they did. It must be OK if parents are doing it. They are learning bad habits from us. Let's see if we'd go next to - this is Adam, Adam with us from New Orleans. ADAM: Hi. Thanks for having me on. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure. ADAM: For me - what it took for me to stop texting while driving, not that I at least tried to do it much, initially - with a new perspective, for me was riding a motorcycle everyday. When I - after I bought my motorcycle, started commuting on it every day, I started noticing just how many people were driving in some kind of distracted manner and really how dangerous it could be to other people. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Did you ever do it on your motorcycle? ADAM: No. I don't know that it would be possible for me to do so. And if I did, I think I would probably crash immediately. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That's probably a persuasive argument too. ADAM: Of course. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And has there been a specific incident that scared the bejesus out of you? ADAM: I don't know, but I could point out specific ones. I have had a few close calls where someone will start to, you know, pull out in front or maybe swerve into my lane. I'll honk at them, and I'll see them, you know, pop their head up. Throw, you know, throw something that I can only assume is a phone into the next seat. And, yeah, I - like I said, couldn't give any specific examples, but I do see it happen fairly often. NEAL CONAN, HOST: OK. Well, I'm glad it was near miss and not something worse. Thanks very much for the call. ADAM: And if my mom or dad are listening, sorry. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's a tweet from Tom Bosco: I'm a reporter-photog. Car is my office. Likely won't quit. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood earlier suggested technology to disable cell phones in vehicles. There's a lot of technology out there now, he said, which can disable phones. We're looking at that, he said on MSNBC, the possibility - I think it will be done, said Ray LaHood. I think the technology is there, and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable cell phones. We do need to do this a lot more if we're going to save lives. Am I on a rampage, he asked himself. Yes, I am, and why shouldn't I be? NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there was some response to that. The NTSB called for a nationwide ban on texting and all cell phone use by drivers. The Lufkin Texas News wrote: There are few things more frustrating than seeing another driver look down at his cell phone instead of watching the road. Yet most of us who own smartphones, we would venture to guess, do exactly that. Many of us do it on a regular basis, but just because we have been accident-free so far doesn't mean we're always going to be so lucky. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The Oregonian in its December 14 editorial said the NTSB's proposal is forward-thinking but asks: too much too soon? The newspaper argued the board ignored the problem of enforcing such a policy and the possibility that some forms of cell phone use, particularly hands-free devices, might not pose as large a risk to public safety. Now, let's see if we can go next to - this is Van, Van with us from Moore in South Carolina. VAN: I was suggesting a similar thing is the technology. I teach ninth grade and, you know, that's when kids are starting to drive, and they are unaware of the potential danger. But if a phone is moving more than 15 or 20 miles an hour, the cell phone company should be able to offer parents the option of (unintelligible) phone capabilities if the phone is in motion. VAN: So some sort of sensor inside to detect when it's going - oh, I guess you could use the GPS already. VAN: Yeah, you have the GPS functions, and parents can already track their children's phones when they are moving places. That's a technology that works. But if it knows when arrive at places and how fast I'm going, it would seem they already have to do is just somebody write an app that would disconnect those call and text functions while the phone is exceeding certain speed. NEAL CONAN, HOST: With some sort of - presumably some override device if you need to make an emergency call. VAN: Well, yeah. And most of the time, if you had an emergency, you're probably pulled over, anyway. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Probably, but you might want to report somebody else driving while talking on the phone. VAN: Yes, and just like when you unlock those phones, you have that button where you can hit emergency call. It opens is up just for, you know, an emergency system, but no, you know, local friend calls. So especially in the U.S., it'd open up for 911 and that would be it in terms of as long as the phone exceeding whatever the established speed would be. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Thanks very much for the suggestion, Van. VAN: Thanks. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is Adam Thyver(ph) - I'm probably mispronouncing that - who wrote on November 18th. This was in response to Ray LaHood's call for technology, maybe jammers. He wrote: It's simply not possible to eliminate all technology from cars, at least, not with creating and - without creating an auto police state and a huge headache for law enforcement officers to boot. Even if you ban integration at the factory of in-vehicle technologies, plenty of people would find aftermarket alternatives. There's just no stopping people from lugging their devices around with them wherever they go and finding ways to connect. And even if government forced signal jammers to be imbedded in every vehicle, determined hackers would likely find a way around them fairly quickly and then tell the public how to defeat those systems. And it also says: We simply can't eliminate every risk from life and trying to do so, we have equally dangerous, unintended consequences. For example, if all communications devices were banned from automobiles and jamming devices were mandated for good measure, what happens when a driver veers off a snowy road into a ditch and needs to call or text for help? Perhaps, there would be a switch to disable the jammer in time of emergency, but wouldn't people just flick it off preemptively, undercutting the ban entirely. And it also says: We're talking about what would make you stop texting while driving or talking on a cell phone? You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And let's go next to Rachel. Rachel with us from Grand, Michigan. RACHEL: Grand Rapids, Michigan. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Grand Rapids, OK. Go ahead. RACHEL: Yes, one thing I just noticed today while I was walking down the street is when you're walking, you have to be very aggressive because people aren't paying attention to - not just cars on the street, but people that are walking on the sidewalks. So when you're trying to cross a street, you know, many times you have to wait that extra stopping to make sure that they stop and see you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you've experienced this yourself? RACHEL: Oh, yes, many times. And just the other day, I was - this lady was in a van texting, and an ambulance was coming down the street. She didn't even hear or see it, and the ambulance almost ran into her while they have the emergency lights on. So, you know, when we live in our urban neighborhoods and a lot of people are walking 'cause it's a walkable neighborhood, people in cars are dangerous, and they're more dangerous when they are texting on their phones 'cause they're not paying attention to what's happening around them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thanks for the call, Rachel. RACHEL: OK. Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's an email from Ken in Portland: What about texting at stoplights or when stopped in traffic? I am guilty of this, but don't do it while the vehicle is in motion. I have occasionally annoyed people that way, but it's not dangerous. But I don't think the law distinguishes, perhaps, because you may not notice when the light changes. VAN: That's a possibility. Let's see if we can go next to - this is John, and John with us from Naples, Florida. JOHN: Yeah, thanks for taking my call. You know, I really think that texting and driving or using the phone, that's not the problem. I mean, if that were the problem, we have millions of car accidents every day. The problem is when you hook on a stupid person into the equation. Because, you know, we can do more than one thing at a time. It is possible. Why not just punish the people who have a problem? Why not punish some people who have accidents or who, like the last lady, got involved with the ambulance? Why not do that? JOHN: I'd like to make a second point. Ray LaHood, who was on your show some months ago. And he said, anything other than 10 and two on the wheel, is distracted driving, but I'd like to tell Ray LaHood that I have a stick shift. And as a Republican, like he is, it's interesting, big government, they hate big government, except when it's intruding into our personal lives. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, stick shift is a solution to texting while driving, isn't it? JOHN: No, I can text and drive all I want to. I've never even had to touch the breaks. As long as you pay attention, it's not a problem but... NEAL CONAN, HOST: But, no, you got to pay attention to your stick. You got something to do with your right hand. JOHN: Yeah, but you can still work the cellphone if you keep your eyes on the road. It's not impossible. It's when people are irresponsible. Why punish everyone? Why not punish the irresponsible? NEAL CONAN, HOST: After they've committed an accident and killed somebody? JOHN: Absolutely. Punish them put 10, 20 years in jail. That will stop people who can't do it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Thanks very much for the call, John. JOHN: Thanks. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Here's Ivan Porter, tweeted: Next, they'll put you in jail for being distracted by fast food sandwiches during an accident. Be careful, folks. And this is from Paula in Jacksonville: What stopped me acquiring a phone with a QWERTY keyboard? As far as I'm concerned, texting on a keyboard of this type cannot be done. I don't understand how anybody tries. I do talk, but I have been driving and talking for years. And then from Gary: There's already an app to shut the phone off if going a certain speed, so that idea, it's a good one. Clearly, somebody has already adopted it. And this is from Lauren in Cincinnati: The best thing I've ever used to stop my bad habit of texting and driving is to drive a manual vehicle. I used to be a horrible driver before I started driving a manual. Now, I haven't had an accident, speeding ticket or even a close call since I started driving a manual five years ago. Driving a manual forces the driver to pay more attention not only to the vehicle, but also to the world around you. And this is from Lauren in Cincinnati: We thank everybody who emailed and tweeted and called in to weigh in on this topic, and we're sorry we couldn't get to everybody's call. Coming up tomorrow, it's TALK OF THE NATION: SCIENCE FRIDAY. Ira Flatow will be here. I'm Neal Conan. We'll see you again on Monday. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

A judge has sentenced a Massachusetts teenager to spend a year behind bars for his role in a fatal crash that police say happened while he was texting. His conviction is one of the first under a new state law that makes it a criminal offense to injure someone while texting and driving.

Ein Richter hat einen Teenager aus Massachusetts zu einem Jahr hinter Gittern verurteilt, weil er in einen tödlichen Unfall verwickelt war, der sich laut Polizei ereignete, während er eine SMS schrieb. Seine Verurteilung ist eine der ersten nach einem neuen staatlichen Gesetz, das es unter Strafe stellt, jemanden zu verletzen, während er eine SMS schreibt und fährt.

一名马萨诸塞州少年因在一场致命车祸中扮演的角色被法官判处一年监禁，警方称这起车祸是在他发短信时发生的。他的定罪依据是新的州法律规定之一，即开车时发短信造成对他人的伤害属于刑事犯罪。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: North Korea seems to have made some major concessions ahead of a meeting between Kim Jong Un and the president of South Korea next Friday. The North Korean leader announced that he will close its nuclear test site and suspend missile tests, which the U.S. and President Trump have been calling big progress. Of course, Trump and Kim have their own historic summit in the works to talk through all these developments. NPR's Elise Hu joins us from Seoul. Thanks very much for being with us, Elise. ELISE HU, BYLINE: Good morning. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What's the reaction been like there in South Korea? ELISE HU, BYLINE: Well, South Korea's presidential spokesman is also positive about this, calling it meaningful progress. He says it will contribute to a positive environment for the success of the upcoming North-South summit, which is set for this coming Friday. And we should point out, though, that North Korea is repackaging, essentially, a testing suspension that has already been in place. And this nuclear site that is shut down can be reopened. So while there's a lot of optimism right now from South Korea's presidential administration, the past is full of instances where North Korea has gone back on its commitments. So longtime North Korea watchers are really looking for action and not just these public pronouncements, if you will. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What does North Korea want or expect to get, hope to get in exchange for any concession? ELISE HU, BYLINE: The assumption is that North Korea wants some sanctions relief. There's, you know, obviously a lot of sanctions on it right now - and possibly recognition that it is a nuclear state. That recognition is something that the U.S. has traditionally considered a nonstarter. But this upcoming North-South summit will be telling. It will be live streamed, which means there's not a lot of room for anything unexpected to happen there, especially with all the cameras on. ELISE HU, BYLINE: So one point that has come up is that these apparent North Korean concessions like shutting down the test site and dropping a longstanding demand for the U.S. to remove troops from South Korea - these are the types of things that you would actually expect leaders to agree to at the summit itself. So I spoke with Robert Kelly. He's a professor at South Korea's Pusan National University. And his question about what North Korea wants and what South Korea will do as a bargain is exactly what you asked. ROBERT KELLY: The North Koreans maybe shot their bolt already, right? They've already sort of leaked out a lot of what their deal is, what they are going to offer on the table. It would be helpful if the South Koreans were to put that out there, too, so you can have a sense of sort of, like, what the bargain is. You know, South Korea being a democracy ultimately, South Korean publics are going to have to pass judgment on what it is that Moon brings back from the summit. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Elise, as you note, North Korea has made promises, signed treaties and agreements before and then walked away from them. What about the skepticism people ought to have in their minds now? ELISE HU, BYLINE: Yeah, there should be a healthy amount of skepticism because this is, you know, one of those tricky situations. You want to see this progress. You know, we should be welcoming this if we want to see peace, right? But because of the past, North Korea really shot a lot of its credibility. And so one of the first reactions is often to ask, what are the ulterior motives? The opposition party in South Korea is saying, hey, let's not get played here. These are pledges only. Let's wait to see some action. And these upcoming summits are going to be very telling. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Elise Hu in Seoul, thanks so much for being with us. ELISE HU, BYLINE: You're welcome.

North Korea has agreed to suspend missile tests, close its major nuclear-testing site and to drop demands that the U.S. remove troops from South Korea. It comes ahead of a historic North-South summit.

Nordkorea hat sich bereit erklärt, seine Raketentests auszusetzen, sein wichtigstes Atomtestgelände zu schließen und die Forderung nach einem Truppenabzug der USA aus Südkorea aufzugeben. Dies geschieht im Vorfeld eines historischen Nord-Süd-Gipfels.

朝鲜同意暂停导弹试验，关闭其主要核试验基地，并不再要求美国从韩国撤军。这是发生在历史性的南北首脑会议之前。

SCOTT DETROW, HOST: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be facing tough questions when he appears before Congress in the coming days. At the top of the list, the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica. That's the company that's been accused of improperly obtaining data from millions of Facebook users, then using that information for its work on political campaigns, reportedly including the Trump campaign. SCOTT DETROW, HOST: Let's hear now from someone with a long history in Silicon Valley. Yonatan Zunger, the former Google engineer, recently wrote in The Boston Globe that this scandal is just more evidence that the entire tech industry faces an ethical crisis. YONATAN ZUNGER: The method by which Cambridge Analytica got the data from Facebook was a system Facebook built almost specifically for the purpose of making it easy for companies to harvest information about networks of individuals. SCOTT DETROW, HOST: Right. And you write that over and over again throughout history, and also in recent years, in the tech field, companies work on something with a specific intention, and then the product is used with - only a slightly degree off from that intention in a way that nobody thought about and causes a lot of harm. YONATAN ZUNGER: Absolutely. Something I always tell people is that any idiot can build a system. Any amateur can make it perform. Professionals think about how a system will fail. It's very common for people to think about how a system will work if it's used the way they imagine it, but they don't think about how that system might work if it were used by a bad actor, or it could be used by just a perfectly ordinary person who's just a little different from what the person designing it is like. SCOTT DETROW, HOST: How do companies have those conversations like you mentioned about the downsides of the services they're coming up with? YONATAN ZUNGER: This is the single most important thing that most companies can be doing right now. First and foremost, companies need to pay attention. And, in fact, individuals working at these companies need to be thinking about how each product could actually be used in the real world. YONATAN ZUNGER: If you build a product that works great for men and is going to lead to harassment of women, you have a problem. If you build a product that makes everyone's address books 5 percent more efficient and then gets three people killed because it happened to leak their personal information to their stalker, that's a problem. YONATAN ZUNGER: What you need is a very diverse working group that can recognize a wide range of problems, that knows which questions to ask and has the support both inside the company and in the broader community to surface these issues and make sure that they're taken seriously and considered as genuine safety issues before a product is released to the public, as well as after. YONATAN ZUNGER: This is different from a traditional compliance function, where they come in at the very end and say, no, I'm sorry. You can't launch this, at which point a business leader is just going to say, well, we need to launch it and it's too late to change it. Because they were in there from the room from day one, it makes a huge difference. SCOTT DETROW, HOST: A lot of people would say, especially here in Washington, where we are, that the answer could be federal regulation. Do you think that's the right way? YONATAN ZUNGER: I think regulation has a place, but it's important to handle it very carefully. In particular, everyone agrees that building codes are a great idea, and I think most people also agree that our elected representatives are not the right people to decide what kind of insulation is appropriate for use in the garage. YONATAN ZUNGER: What you want is regulation and other mandatory mechanisms, like ethics standards or review boards or whatever processes you have, that specifies goals and objectives, which we can discuss as a society. And then the actual translation of that into implementation is something that should be done by people who deeply understand the field. SCOTT DETROW, HOST: Well, Yonatan Zunger, formerly of Google. Now he works for the tech company Humu. Thank you so much for joining us. YONATAN ZUNGER: Thank you very much.

NPR's Scott Detrow talks with former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger. He argues the tech industry should operate with a "higher standard for care."

Scott Detrow von NPR spricht mit dem ehemaligen Google-Ingenieur Yonatan Zunger. Er argumentiert, dass die Technologiebranche mit einem \„höheren Sorgfaltsstandard\“ arbeiten sollte.

美国国家公共广播电台记者斯科特·德特洛，采访了谷歌前工程师约纳坦·佐格。他认为，科技行业发展应执行“更高维护标准”。

IRA FLATOW, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. For the rest of the hour, weird wildlife discoveries. Flora Lichtman is here to tell us more. Hi, Flora. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Hi, Ira. Pack your bags because we are going on safari. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Actually, it's mostly little game today, starting with bacteria that manufacture magnets in their body. IRA FLATOW, HOST: A magnetic microbe? FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Yup. And researchers at the University of Leeds are trying to turn these bacteria into biocomputers. So traditionally, computer hard discs use tiny magnets to store information. And the idea is to use these bacteria or magnets made by these bacteria to store data instead. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And here to explain how that would work is Dr. Sarah Staniland, a lecturer in bionanoscience at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leeds. She was co-author - a co-author of a study on the subject published in the journal Small. She joins us from Leeds, U.K. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. SARAH STANILAND: Hello there. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Hi there. How did you use magnetic bacteria to create the beginnings of a biological hard drive? SARAH STANILAND: OK. So what we've actually done is not use the bacteria themselves, but what they have is they have proteins within them that can manufacture these nanomagnets within them, very precisely - precise size and shape. So what we've done is actually extracted and used one of the proteins that does this, and we've actually used that to make an array of nanomagnets on a surface which is then a proof of concept that can be used for a hard drive. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: So you harvest the protein, and the protein does the sort of magnet manufacture for you? SARAH STANILAND: Exactly. That's right. I mean, what nature is amazing for is that it - if they can have, I suppose, millions, billions of years to experiment through evolution so it's really got a really perfect and elegant way of manufacturing things on the nanoscale. So within these microbes, these proteins can actually control the size and shape of them, really perfectly. So we'll extract that particular protein, and we'll use that on the surface of - actually gold surfaces to make an array of nanomagnets. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Let's step back a little bit. So remind me how a traditional hard drive works. Those use little magnets too, I guess. SARAH STANILAND: Yes. So what you have - we have a surface, and it's granulated. And you pattern it with a magnetic signal. And then you obviously read that magnetic signal back. But what we're trying to strive for is if we can use single domain to have the smaller, smaller magnets we can use, then obviously the more density you can fit on a surface. So that's really the driving force - that's the driving force to make all these components smaller. And if we can make them perfectly sized and shaped, so we can use what they call single domain nanomagnets on the surface. And that's something called bit-patterned media where each bit is one tiny magnet. IRA FLATOW, HOST: And so how many more bits can you put on the surface than you could on a hard drive? SARAH STANILAND: Oh, to be honest, I'm not an expert in making hard drives. I'm a material - I'm just making the nanomaterials. I couldn't tell you exactly what is going on in the hard drive at present. But what I'm - I know the bit-patterned media isn't currently a reality in our computers now, and that's something we're striving for. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: And your - the version that you've made already - so you've actually - you have a prototype of sorts, right? SARAH STANILAND: Well, no. The journal in Small will show you that what we've done is we've got this protein. Now, this protein was actually discovered way back in 2003. Some of my co-workers in Japan, a group there, they found that when they took out the magnets from the magnetic bacteria, they found the protein really tightly attached to the magnetosome, the actual magnetized particle. So they extracted them off, and they grouped lots of it and put that into a chemical precipitation of the particles and found they control the size and shape. SARAH STANILAND: So that that was all ready known. What we've done differently in this study is that - (unintelligible) who's the lead author. She spent her Ph.D. trying to and achieving taking this protein to a surface in the patterned array. So the array that we have is actually on a microbe meterscale, so it's actually too big to be a bit-patterned media as yet. IRA FLATOW, HOST: So... SARAH STANILAND: (Unintelligible) for a hard drive, but we currently have a new Ph.D. student making patterns, as we speak, that are nanoscale. So the aim is to have a single particle per pattern. IRA FLATOW, HOST: How close are you to making a practical memory device? SARAH STANILAND: Well, interestingly, to finish it off, cause my - the Ph.D. student who's just finishing, Jo(ph), who's the lead author. She's actually just won a fellowship to spend two years developing this exact science. So she's actually going to spend some time in the States working on this. So hopefully, we'll have some sort of prototype from her in a couple of years. But I think we're a long way off maybe having it a reality in all our computers, maybe more like 10 years. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Do the magnets change if you give the bacteria something different to eat? SARAH STANILAND: Actually, it's funny you should ask, because I started this research because I was interested in trying to change the composition of the magnetite particles. So I was really interested in magnetic bacteria because I'm a chemist, to start with. I wanted to synthesize perfectly-shaped particles. And I saw these bacteria did that for me, but I really wanted them to have a more coercive(ph) magnetic field. I - they make harder magnets. And they do that if you add cobalt. SARAH STANILAND: So I just, very naively as a chemist, thought I could feed these microbes, not just iron, but also feed them cobalt and see if they take it up. And they did take up a small amount before they got poisoned. So that was quite a big study that showed that this is the first time you could actually add something different to the binarization process. And you get these enhanced namomagnets. So the (unintelligible) themselves within the bacteria were actually - that was cobalt. So they were harder magnets. IRA FLATOW, HOST: So it's good that you were ignorant enough not to know, not to ask that question. SARAH STANILAND: Exactly. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Why do the microbes have this ability? Do you have any sense? SARAH STANILAND: It's a really good question. Most times when I give a talk about this subject, people do always ask that, because they are intriguing little things, and they're beautiful to look at. I mean, if you can pull up an image on the Internet, if any of your listeners there, you'll see the - like, wiggly worms with all this, like, spine down them, of magnetic particles. And they were first discovered in the late '70s by an American scientist called Blakemore. And he saw they're magnetic, so he proposed - quite fairly - that he assumed it was navigation, because they actually grow at a very specific oxygen tension. So they'll be in a pond, possibly even outside your studio. You might find some. They're very near the sediment in the pond, so quite near the bottom. Actually... IRA FLATOW, HOST: Yeah. You here on 5th Avenue, I think. SARAH STANILAND: But they grow without a very chemistry-defined area, with only 1 percent oxygen. So it's supposed that they would use this to navigate to that area. But then they don't actually make the magnetosomes at higher oxygen tension - so aerobically, when there's normal oxygen, like, in the air. So I don't think that that's actually probably true. So there are a lot of different theories floating around. People thought that it might be because iron is quite toxic. It's a way of storing iron out of the system. But then when there's actually very low amounts of iron, they will scavenge iron. So like my cobalt experiment, reducing the iron, and they made magnetosomes. So I don't think it's that, either. I'm angling more towards metabolism. It might be something to do with them getting energy from the surface. But I genuinely don't know. It's still mystery. IRA FLATOW, HOST: That's - we love mysteries in science. Thank you very much, Dr. Staniland, for taking time to be with us. SARAH STANILAND: That's all right. Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: You're welcome. Dr. Sarah Staniland is lecturer in Bionanoscience at the School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, and co-author of the study published in the journal Small. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Now diving to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean to meet a colony of microbes that got stuck in the mud. Nice work, Ira. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Thank you. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Eighty-six million years ago is when it happened, when the dinosaurs were roaming the planet. And to make matters worse, this community of microorganisms hasn't gotten any fresh food since they sunk, and yet they're still alive - although life is pretty slow down there. It takes one of these microbes 10 years to use as much oxygen as we inhale in a single breath. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Here to tell us more is Dr. Hans Roy, a microbiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. He was part of the team that unearthed this deep-sea microorganism, and is co-author of the study published in Science. He joins us from Denmark. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY. HANS ROY: Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Doctor Roy, you found some really old communities of microbes, didn't you, when you were looking? HANS ROY: Yes, we were probing the sediment, and saw this sediment sitting, like, 6,000 meters below the sea and 30 meters into the sediments, and lots of them. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Is it clear how - when you say that these communities are millions of years old, does that mean - what does that mean, exactly? How old is an individual in this group? HANS ROY: This is a - this is, I think, one of the most intriguing questions that we are getting here, because we have really no way of judging the age of the individual organisms. We know that the community is that old, and we know that due to this very slow metabolism, that the actual cells must also be very old. But we cannot really extrapolate the age from calculating their - from their metabolism, because the only thing we have to compare it to is something that grows very fast. HANS ROY: Normally, we would think about how microbes grow and what their energy budget is. We kind of ignore their idling metabolism or their maintenance metabolism, because it's such a small fraction of their growth. And that's probably a good way of doing it if you have something that will double its cell every 20 minutes. But if it's something that's not growing at all, you just cannot ignore that maintenance energy. And then that means that we have really now way of judging how old the individual organisms are. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: Do we know what they're eating down there? HANS ROY: The only thing that they really have access to is just, you know, the remnants of algae and the shells of crustaceans and whatever fell down through the water column 86 million years go and got incorporated, like, maybe half a percent of organic content, organic carbon in these sediments. That's what they had from the start, and that's what they're still eating. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Very slowly, I imagine, then. I mean, it's 86-million-year-old food. HANS ROY: That is exactly - that is 86 million-years-old food, and it has been undergoing various chemical processes and it's been polymerizing and turning into something that's very, very complex and very, very hard to eat. And I don't think it's because they're really - that they are clever and they're saving it, but it's something that's very, very hard for them to actually break down. FLORA LICHTMAN, BYLINE: When they, I mean, when they sunk down there, presumably, their metabolism was faster, right? This has to - I guess that's the part that confuses me. Did they go down with a slow metabolism, or this is an adaptation once they were down there, the ones that survived, stuck around? HANS ROY: That is another one of these things that we don't know. Up at the surface, there's about 1,000-millionth(ph) in a cubic inch. And when we get down 30 meters below, 86 million years later, there's maybe 10,000 per cubic inch. So you could say, well, is that then a small fraction of those that once were? Or is it somebody who has been then - a living community that has been keeping itself alive and dividing for that many years? We - it's hard to imagine that they should be 86 million years old. So we kind of - we imagine that these are, indeed, active organisms. They are just adapted to this very low rate of metabolism. (unintelligible) where they come from. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Dr. Roy, thank you very much - it's fascinating - for taking time to be with us. HANS ROY: Thank you. IRA FLATOW, HOST: Doctor Hans Roy, microbiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. He was co-author of a study published in Science. I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.

Scientists at the University of Leeds are exploring ways to use magnetic bacteria to build biocomputers of the future. Meanwhile, another group of researchers, reporting in Science, write that they have unearthed deep-sea microbe that live off nutrients from the dinosaur age.

Wissenschaftler der Universität Leeds erforschen Möglichkeiten, magnetische Bakterien für den Bau von Biocomputern der Zukunft zu nutzen. In der Zwischenzeit hat eine andere Forschergruppe in der Zeitschrift Wissenschaft (Science) Mikroben aus der Tiefsee entdeckt, die von Nährstoffen aus der Zeit der Dinosaurier leben.

英国利兹大学的科学家正在探索利用磁性细菌构建未来生物计算机的方法。与此同时，另一组研究人员在《科学》杂志上报道说，他们发现了深海微生物，它们依靠恐龙时代的营养物质生存。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. In another dramatic turn in Egypt, the first free democratic presidential election in the nation's history set up a run-off vote next month between two divisive candidates: Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister under former President Hosni Mubarak. Between them, the two top candidates received just under 50 percent of the votes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That left the other candidates questioning the process and left many Egyptians disappointed with their options. The Muslim Brotherhood already controls parliament and a victory for Mohammed Morsi would put an Islamist in the presidency as well. While former prime minister and former Air Force general Shafik promises a return to authoritarian control. What are Egypt's choices now? NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'd especially like to hear from those of you who've been to Egypt since the Arab Spring. What's changed? 800-989-8255, email is talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Go to npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. Later in the program, last week's atrocity in Houla leads to a new sense of crisis in Syria. But first, Egypt. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland and a non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. He joins us now by phone from Qatar. And Shibley, nice to have you on the program, as always. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Good to be with you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you conducted a public opinion survey in Egypt in the weeks leading up to this first round of the presidential election. That and other polls showed that there was flagging support for the Muslim Brotherhood and it listed Ahmed Shafik as a bit of a long shot. Are you surprised at the results? SHIBLEY TELHAMI: No, actually, I'm not. I mean, when you look actually at the releases of the polls, including ours, which was taken before May 10, which is the debate between Abul Fotouh and Amr Moussa, we were very clear that you can't predict the elections. You can look at trends because in the end, the elections are about turnout and about passion and about - and the picture in Egypt, we knew, was changing by the day. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Even after the May 10 debate, the headline in the newspaper of Tahrir in Egypt, the morning after that first ever presidential debate that pitted the then two leading candidates, Amr Moussa and Abul Fotouh by all polls, that the headlines said, and the winner is (foreign language spoken). And the tweets were saying, and the winner is all of the other candidates. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: So there was a sense that both candidates didn't do well in the debate and the subsequent polls that were taken, including one by El Haram, began to show a decline for Amr Moussa and a decline for Abul Fotouh. We also predicted that Moussa would do considerably better in the actual election than he has done in the polls because of machinery. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: And that was actually, you know, everybody identified that. That was not a particular surprise that they would pull it off. But ultimately the trends and the polls were pretty much on the money, which is the Brotherhood ultimately, their candidate will do better than the polls were showing, but they will do considerably worse than they did in the parliamentary election because the trends were showing the public was really angry with them on several scores. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Seventy-one percent of our polls showed that - 71 percent of the Egyptians polled said that they made a mistake by fielding their own candidate after saying that they wouldn't do so. And the role of religion and politics, while it's important, was not in any of the polls showing up as a primary reason for voting, which is, you know, which is the way it turned out. But the biggest surprise to me and to, I think, everybody else, and I'm here with some prominent Egyptians here in the conference room mulling this over this morning, really is the good showing of the Nasserist Arab nationalist, secularist candidate Sabahy who almost pulled it off being top two. He's number three. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: And the remarkable thing is that he did well in particularly Islamist strongholds, especially in Alexandria where he himself was surprised. He said, I didn't know I had so much support there. So that really was the big surprise and I think it kind of leads us into this thing of not labeling people Islamist, non-Islamist, just thinking that that is going to be the only or the principle dimension of the way they're going to behave. It's all about issues. That's what we've seen. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And right, on that basis, how do you see this next round shaping up, then? SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Two things. One is when you look at what happened in the first round, only 46 percent of Egyptians voted and that's a bit depressing because, you know, people who were being polled were saying, you know, 90 percent of - El Haram, just a couple of days before, said 90 percent are saying they're going to vote in the election. That's half of that. So the turnout wasn't great. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: The second part that was depressing was that the two leading candidates combined didn't make 50 percent. They combined at less than it. So a majority of Egyptians actually voted against the two leading candidates. And so there is no enthusiasm and so come this run-off election, the question is, you know, who's going to turn out? So to predict would be very difficult for that reason because I think in the end, politics is really about passion. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: And if you look at the Morsi and Shafik and you ask how could you explain the way that they won, well, with the Muslim Brotherhood, we knew they had the machinery. That wasn't hard to explain. With Shafik, I think he's the one who understood that this is more like a primary election rather than a national election where he has to appeal to the rest of the public. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: That round one was to appeal to a minority that would support him passionately well enough to place him and then he can change his tune and become the champion of revolution and all Egyptians around, too. He did well that way because he got, you know, a lot of people who were disaffected with the Brotherhood. He got people who were part of the elites that were around Mubarak. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: He got people who were related to the security scheme, the families of security establishment members and he certainly did well among the Copts. We knew that he would do well. He was, you know, really catering them directly, at one point, even promising that he was going to put forth a Christian woman as a vice presidential candidate. And I think in the next round, he will probably do better even among women who may be disaffected by the Muslim Brotherhood. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: So it's going to be a lot of lobbying, a lot of coalition building in the next two weeks in ways that Egypt has never seen. The liberals will be a critical force here in terms of they have to figure out whether there is something in it for them that they can actually extract from any of these candidates particularly on the constitutional change, which is the, you know, core issue, or whether they're better off sitting out or being on the opposition or going to the, you know, turning out only to disqualify the votes to show that they're close to, you know, that the people who are against both candidates are almost as many as whoever is going to win. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: So there's a lot going on here and I think the next two weeks every single day is going to bring a different proposal for a new coalition in the elections. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, Shibley, thanks very much for your time. We'll let you get back to your meeting. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Thanks very much. My pleasure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland and he joined us from a hotel in Qatar in the Persian Gulf. With us here in studio 3A is Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, author of "The Struggle For Egypt From Nasser To Tahrir Square," and nice to have you with us today. STEVEN COOK: Pleasure to be with you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And are you surprised by this result? STEVEN COOK: Well, I am a big surprised. Going into the elections, it was received wisdom that either Egypt's former foreign minister, Amr Moussa, or Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh, the former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, that it was essentially a two-horse race between those two. Moussa, of the top candidates, received the least votes, then Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh, I think we were fooled, by and large, by the polling that had been done. In all due respect to Shibley and the work that he's done, I think we put a little too much credibility in what the polls were saying. STEVEN COOK: It is such a dynamic political environment in Egypt and I think that the Egyptian public is being whipsawed. Day-to-day events are changing their views of things. And it's also true that in countries undergoing political transitions, people tend not to tell pollsters the truth of what they really believe. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, in the meantime, the result shows the most conservative of the major political candidates, religiously conservative, and the most likely to - the person who says Hosni Mubarak, the previous dictator, is his role model. STEVEN COOK: That's true. This is perhaps the worst possible outcome if you are an Egyptian revolutionary, and we're hoping that by dint of the uprising that began on January 25, 2011 that you would force a change, a genuine democratic change to Egyptian society. I think that Mohammed Morsi represents change, but it may not necessarily be a democratic one. And, of course, Ahmed Shafik, the former Air Force commander and Mubarak's last prime minister ran basically an unabashed platform of rolling back the so-called revolution, restoring order and smashing the Islamists, who he called the dark forces. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So given these choices, there's also - in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood, they have enormous power in parliament. This has not necessary been an advantage thus far. But is it clear yet, even if they were elected, who would have control of the process of writing the new constitution which would delineate the powers of the parliament, the president and indeed the armed forces who are the other factor here? STEVEN COOK: Well, it's a terrific question. Presently, the composition of the constituent assembly, which is this committee of 100 that is supposed to write a constitution in a month, is under negotiation in the parliament. There is a draft law on the table that will bring these issues forward. Because we're still in the transitional period, however, it is subject to the approval of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and there's no guarantee that they will agree to what the people's assembly has determined. STEVEN COOK: I think, though, that the new president clearly, although his powers have yet to be enumerated, will have an influence on the process as will the parliament. And I think we will see a struggle between the president and the parliament and the president and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and the parliament and the armed forces over who really influences this constitution process because that's really what's at stake here. STEVEN COOK: The presidential elections are important because they then lead to this constitution-writing process. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the question being, can the president fire the armed forces chiefs? And that's an open question. STEVEN COOK: Well, it's an open question and thus far, the military has responded - absolutely not. They will not submit to civilian control and that they will seek to carve out their own autonomous place in Egyptian society and continue to essentially play the role that they've played all along, which is to have an influential political role without being involved in the day-to-day governance of Egypt and hold onto a vast array of economic interests all at the same time. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking about a difficult choice Egyptians face in the coming weeks. We'd especially like to hear from those of you who've been to Egypt since the Arab Spring. What's changed? 800-989-8266, email us, talk@npr.org. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. In the months since the Arab Spring, it's proven fruitless to try to predict what happens next in Egypt. The latest twist, a run-off between two divisive presidential candidates, Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmed Shafik, who served as prime minister under former president, Hosni Mubarak. Each represents a very different vision for Egypt's future. So what are the choices now? NEAL CONAN, HOST: We'd especially like to hear from those of you who've been to Egypt since the Arab Spring. What's changed? 800-989-8255, email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at npr.org. Our guest is Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. His new book, "The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square." NEAL CONAN, HOST: And joining us now is Tarek Masoud, assistant professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government where he specializes in Middle Eastern politics and policy. He joins us now by phone from Jordan and nice to have you back on the program. TAREK MASOUD: Good to be with you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I understand you were just in Egypt. What was the feeling there? TAREK MASOUD: Well, the feeling was - it depends on who you talk to. I mean, if you talk to obviously those who we might call the youth of the revolution, this was a discouraging result. To have to choose in the run-off between the Muslim Brotherhood and a representative of the old regime is not quite what these folks had in mind. TAREK MASOUD: If you talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, even though they try to put a brave face on it and claim that this was a victory, I think they were expecting to do a little bit better than this, especially given that they had done so well in the parliamentary election. I think the group that really are feeling quite buoyed and optimistic by this are the supporters of Ahmed Shafik, who, I think, lots of folks had underestimated. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Underestimated. And is this a fear of what's been happening, about the lawlessness, about the lack of control? Is it let's go back to the way things were? TAREK MASOUD: I think there's a couple of things. First of all, we tend to look at Egyptian elections through an American lens. So we think that the vote shares by each candidate represent ideas out there in society and the people who agree with the candidate's ideas vote for that candidate. But we've got to recognize that, particularly in the Egyptian case, which is a new democracy, voters aren't terribly sophisticated. TAREK MASOUD: A lot of what drives vote share is mobilization. And the Muslim Brotherhood was able to go out there and mobilize its voters. The thing about Ahmed Shafik, which nobody is really saying, is that he was able to use the apparatus of the state, not just the old national democratic party, but the old security apparatus that knows which families to buy off and which villages. And that really worked on his behalf in sort of mobilizing voters for him, particularly in rural areas where we thought the Muslim Brotherhood would dominate. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in on the conversation. Our first caller is Adam. Adam with us from San Antonio. ADAM: Hey, (unintelligible), you know, devoted listener, first time caller. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, thanks very much for both those. ADAM: Thanks for putting me on the program. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Sure, go ahead. ADAM: Here is my dilemma, you know. When Ahmed Shafik was the prime minister after Mubarak, you know, left the, you know, the presidency and all this kind of stuff, the people were not on the streets, you know, chanting Ahmed, Ahmed. They were in droves, you know what I mean, asking for his resignation. Yet, he is the runner-up in an election for president. You know, I just don't understand how they can, you know, throw one to the dogs one time and then the next time, they put him as a runner-up. ADAM: You know, I mean, to me, I always thought, you know, Amr Moussa would be the perfect candidate, you know, for this period at least, you know, for his knowledge of the international arena, you know what I mean? And he can help Egypt a lot more than any of them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, let's turn to Steven Cook. The prime minister was forced to resign by pressure from the square in Tahrir Square. STEVEN COOK: That's absolutely right. I think, though, as Tarek pointed out, this campaign that Shafik has run was based, in large part, on using the state apparatus to buy off which families where in rural areas. That certainly gave his candidacy a boost. It's also important to recognize that a lot has happened since Ahmed Shafik was forced to resign in March, 2011. STEVEN COOK: He was not only Mubarak's last prime minister, he was also the transitions first prime minister. And there have been amazing twists and turns in Egyptian politics over the course of the last sixteen months. And it is reasonable to assume that there are many Egyptians who have grown weary of the uncertainty, have grown weary of the precarious security environment, and are seeking an authoritarian solution to Egypt's current problems. STEVEN COOK: It's discouraging from the perspective of Egyptian revolutionaries, that there are so many people who seem willing to go back to some semblance of the old order. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Adam, thanks very much for the call. ADAM: Yeah, thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we can go next to - this is Tim and Tim's with us from Long Beach Island in New Jersey. TIM: Hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, go ahead, please. TIM: Thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to - I wondered just if the military will ever relinquish power to the Egyptian people no matter who is elected and what party is ruling. They pretty much own most of the industries and live comfortably off of them, (unintelligible), hotels, you name it. And whoever is elected is going to be a puppet of the military establishment. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, Tarek Masoud, what do you think? TAREK MASOUD: Well, I think that you make a very good point, Tim. And I would say if you look at both of the two candidates now who are left, Mohammed Morsi and Ahmed Shafik, you notice that both of them actually are very conservative when it comes to how they will deal with the military. Mohammed Morsi has, on the campaign trail, been sending very clear signals that, you know, his government would not try to get into any conflict with the military or reduce the military's privileges or otherwise bring it fully under civilian authority. TAREK MASOUD: So anybody who takes over in Egypt in the coming period knows that the military is going to have a vast scope of power, and that is generally how it is in many places that are coming out of military dictatorship. Indonesia is a good example of this. But with time, the military's powers generally we expect to get clipped way, chipped away at, until it's no longer a dominant force. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Turkey might be an interesting comparison, Steven Cook. STEVEN COOK: You just took the words right out of my mouth. Turkey... TAREK MASOUD: Exactly. STEVEN COOK: ...is the paradigmatic example of this kind of thing. The Turkish military broadly perceived to be all-powerful and dominant in the Turkish political system has, over the course of the last decade, been reduced in important ways to the extent that the Turkish general staff does not have the ability to drive and influence political events in the way that it once did. STEVEN COOK: That's certainly a possibility going forward in Egypt. It would be good for Egyptian democracy, if that was the case. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tim, thanks very much. TIM: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we got - our next two. This is Medea(ph). Medea is with us from Denver. MEDEA: Hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, go ahead, please. MEDEA: So I just want to say that we Egyptians somehow ended up with two candidates that actually nobody stands. And we're in a very tough position now because we don't want Egypt to be another Iran so we don't to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, runner in Mohammed Morsi. But we don't want to vote for the pro-government person, Ahmed Shafik, either. MEDEA: And to be honest, I don't how we ended up with these two candidates because Hadeem Sabahy, for example, for Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh, they are much more liked by Egyptians. So we're really in a very tough position. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, Tarek Masoud, devil in the deep blue sea. Some Egyptians, obviously some Egyptians can stand these two candidates. They voted for them, but the majority didn't. TAREK MASOUD: Well, but we have to be very careful here, so while I've long said that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't represent the first choice of a majority of Egyptians, that's not the same as saying that a majority of Egyptians would never vote for the Muslim Brotherhood under any circumstances. I know that surveys and polls in Egypt have now taken it on the chin in terms of their accuracy, but if you look at surveys and polls done in Egypt for the last 15 years, you find that there is this deep reservoir of religious sentiment and this belief that there should be a harmonization between religion and law. TAREK MASOUD: And so the Muslim Brotherhood isn't - and it's views are not necessarily anathema to a majority of Egyptians. It's just in this case, a majority of Egyptians seemed to have wanted something else. I think the ball right now really is in the Muslim Brotherhood's court. If the Muslim Brotherhood can signal to the youth of the revolution and to those for whom religion isn't really something that they want very much of in their political life, if the brothers can signal to them that they're going to have a coalition government, that they're going to bring less (unintelligible) into government, give them a greater role in the constitution-writing process, then they have a real chance. TAREK MASOUD: And I don't see how Ahmed Shafik could overcome that. If the brothers don't do that and Ahmed Shafik continues to play on this theme of the Brotherhood as sort of this supremacist organization that wants to take Egypt backwards and force Egyptian women to wear the veil and do other kinds of retrograde things, then I think they've got a much tougher road. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Steven Cook, there also have to be questions about the future. Would government in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood be willing to relinquish power in another democratic election? STEVEN COOK: Well, that's precisely the concern that the caller was expressing when she said that she didn't want Egypt to become another Iran. I don't think that there's really a basis of comparison between Khomeini's revolution and what we're seeing in Egypt right now, In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has used at least the language of reform and change ever since it entered the electoral arena in the early 1980s. Still, they've never repudiated their ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic state. STEVEN COOK: Now, that's a subject of debate what exactly that means. But essentially, I agree with Tarek is that, look, if you look at the Brotherhood and its party, the Freedom and Justice Party, they won a plurality of votes in the parliamentary elections. If they play it right during this runoff period and they make credible commitments to revolutionary youth, liberals and others... NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Christians. STEVEN COOK: ...and Christians as well, it's going to be hard for Shafik to overcome the ignominy of being Hosni Mubarak's last prime minister. I don't think people can get their minds around that they would elect yet another military officer to be the president of Egypt after everything that has happened over the course of the last year and a half. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Tarek Masoud, that then leads to the question of who gets to write the constitution? TAREK MASOUD: Well, I think that's exactly right, and I think one of the concessions that the Brotherhood is talking very seriously about making is giving these non-Islamist forces a much greater role in the writing of the constitution. And this is going to be critical because, you know, and this is where I think that there's - there may be a sort of divergence in the interests between the revolutionaries and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, actually we talked to them what they want Egypt to be is a pure parliamentary system with no president at all. TAREK MASOUD: But I think what the liberals have realized is that a presidential system is pretty good for them because it allows them to overcome using the charisma of their candidate all kinds of organizational - it's the thing like they have at the local level. So not only - they probably want to keep a presidential system. If you can imagine that there's all kinds of these conflicts over the constitution that could emerge. So for the Brotherhood to give up the (unintelligible) over writing the constitution would be a very, very serious commitment by them. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tarek Masoud, thanks very much for your time today. Appreciate it. TAREK MASOUD: Thank you. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Tarek Masoud, assistant professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, with us on the phone from Jordan. And our thanks as well to Steven Cook, who joined us here in Studio 3A... STEVEN COOK: Great pleasure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...his most recent book "The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square." And you're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming to you from NPR News.

Election results set the stage for a runoff vote between the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi and Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister under former President Mubarak. International monitors called the election one of Egypt's most transparent, but violent protests broke out after the final tally. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland, College Park Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies, Council on Foreign Relations Tarek Masoud, assistant professor of public policy, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

Die Wahlergebnisse bereiteten die Bühne für eine Stichwahl zwischen Mohamed Morsi von der Muslimbruderschaft und Ahmed Shafik, dem letzten Premierminister unter dem ehemaligen Präsidenten Mubarak. Internationale Beobachter bezeichneten die Wahl als eine der transparentesten in Ägypten, doch nach der endgültigen Auszählung brachen gewaltsame Proteste aus. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor für Frieden und Entwicklung, University of Maryland, College Park\nSteven Cook, Leitender Mitarbeiter für Nahoststudien, Council on Foreign Relations\nTarek Masoud, Assistenzprofessor für öffentliche Ordnung, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

选举结果为穆斯林兄弟会的穆罕默德·穆尔西和前总统穆巴拉克时期的最后一任总理艾哈迈德·沙菲克，为后续的决选奠定了基础。国际观察员称这次选举是埃及最透明的选举之一，但在最终点票后爆发了暴力抗议活动。希伯利·泰尔哈米，安瓦尔·萨达特，和平与发展教授，马里兰大学，史蒂文·库克，中东研究高级研究员，外交关系委员会，塔雷克.马苏德，哈佛大学甘乃迪政府学院公共政策助理教授。

AILSA CHANG, HOST: And now to Washington, where the long wait to see the Mueller report is nearly over here. The Justice Department says it will release the special counsel report about Russian election interference this Thursday, but it's still unclear how much of the document people will get to see. NPR national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson has been following this story, and she joins us now. Hey, Carrie. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Hi, Ailsa. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So can you just take us back for a moment? What do we know about this report and what it will look like when it gets released? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Remember that special counsel Robert Mueller delivered this report to Justice Department leaders on March 22 - quite a while ago. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Right. Yeah. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: It's long. It's about 400 pages, and it's separated into sections that cover things like obstruction of justice and conspiracy, also known as collusion in this White House. The report covers the analysis as well as the conclusions the special counsel reached. Now, a lot of work went into this investigation - nearly two years, 500 search warrants, 2,800 subpoenas. AILSA CHANG, HOST: Wow. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: But all people have seen is a four-page letter that the attorney general, Bill Barr, sent to Congress last month. Remember, in that letter, Barr says prosecutors did not have enough evidence to establish conspiracy charges against any Americans for conspiring with the Russian government. And Barr says he can determine that President Trump did not obstruct justice, so Trump won't face any criminal charges either. AILSA CHANG, HOST: OK. But there's still a lot that we don't know. What are you personally going to be looking for when you get your hands on this report on Thursday? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: I'm curious about a lot of things. The first is the special counsel did not reach a conclusion about whether Trump should be charged with obstructing justice, but the special counsel also wrote he did not exonerate the president. Why not? Was that because the Justice Department guidance says a sitting president can't be charged with a crime while he's in office, or for some other reason? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Another thing I wonder about - what other evidence did investigators gather about obstruction? A lot was done in the open - the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey, for instance. But what else did this team pry out of this White House? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: And then on another front, conspiracy. Was the evidence just not strong enough on conspiracy because Trump campaign officials didn't know what they were doing? Were they being duped by the Russian government or Russian business leaders? Or are they more like what some former intelligence officers call useful idiots? AILSA CHANG, HOST: Now, the attorney general told Congress last week that he would be redacting, or blacking out, parts of this report. That prompted a question from Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Here's what he asked. BRIAN SCHATZ: The basic question, I think, for the public is, are we going to get the gist of this, or is it going to be, you know, on January of 2015, and then you have to flip 15 pages to find the next text? WILLIAM BARR: You will get more than the gist. AILSA CHANG, HOST: OK, more than the gist, but how much more, Carrie? What do you think? CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: What we know is the process has been happening in connection with members of the special counsel team as of last week. Barr told Congress he had not overruled that team on any redactions. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: And we also know there are categories of material that are going to be hidden - things about ongoing investigations, since there are offshoots ongoing in D.C. and New York and Virginia that are still active. Classified material's not going to be in there. Grand jury material is unlikely to be in there. And also unlikely to be in there - sensitive information that could hurt the privacy of third parties who were not charged. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Now, the attorney general says that category will not apply to the president, but what about Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump or the son-in-law, Jared Kushner? We just don't know yet. AILSA CHANG, HOST: So many questions still left to be answered. NPR justice correspondent, Carrie Johnson. Thanks, Carrie. CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: My pleasure.

The Justice Department says it will release a redacted version of the Mueller report on Thursday. The release should shed light on many open questions surrounding the special counsel's investigation.

Das Justizministerium sagt, es werde am Donnerstag eine geschwärzte Version des Mueller-Berichts veröffentlichen. Die Veröffentlichung dürfte viele offene Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den Ermittlungen des Sonderberaters klären.

司法部表示，将在星期四公布米勒报告的修订版本。这次公布应有助于澄清围绕特别检察官调查的许多悬而未决的问题。

JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm John Dankosky, sitting in for Ira Flatow. This time of year, wildlife conservationists warn you to look out for migrating turtles crossing the road. OK, what if the turtle is nearly eight feet long, the size of a compact car? JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Well, 60 million years ago, not long after the dinosaurs disappeared, this monster turtle was patrolling the tropics, snapping up fish and baby alligators in his powerful jaws. My next guest discovered this beast in a coalmine in Colombia, and he describes it in the Journal of Systematic Paleontology. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Let me introduce him. Edwin Cadena is a graduate student at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. He joins us from a studio in Raleigh today. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Mr. Cadena. EDWIN CADENA: Thanks, hello, John, for the invitation to participate today in SCIENCE FRIDAY, and really it's a pleasure for me to be on NPR today. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Well, we're happy to have you here. If you want to give us a call, our number is 1-800-989-8255, that's 1-800-989-TALK. If you're on Twitter, you can tweet us your questions by writing the @ sign followed by scifri. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: So first of all, tell us how you found this thing. Why were you looking at a coalmine for a giant turtle? EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, well, the story starts actually around 2005, when a colleague of mine, he's a paleobotonist, went to the mine for the first time, and he found some fossil leaves. And that was the first clue for looking for something else. We said if we find fossil leaves, maybe there are more things there. EDWIN CADENA: And I went to the mine to collect everything that was on the field, and in particular we were focused on the bones, so fragments of animals. And so the story started in 2005, when I started discovering turtles and pieces of bone of turtles and also fragments of crocodiles. And even for that time, I had the opportunity to discover the first vertebrae of titanboa, the largest snake so far known. EDWIN CADENA: And so it's been fascinating since 2005, going to this mine in Colombia looking for fossils. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: And what were you using to dig around in this coalmine? EDWIN CADENA: So basically I call it the high-tech paleontology, but it's actually very simple tools. We used screwdrivers, and the screwdrivers are fantastic tools for - in particular for the rock of the mine, which is clay stone, and they - using the screwdriver, we can easily break down pieces in order to preserve and be able to extract the fossils carefully. So the screwdriver is a fantastic tool for me. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: It doesn't sound like exactly the right tool, but if it gets the job done, you know, whatever it takes. So you found other turtles down there. When did you start to realize you had something different on your hands? EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, so this is - Carbonemys, which is the turtle we are talking today, is the second species that we describe at the mine. We described another one in 2010. And - but this one is the largest one that we have found in the mine, and it was a really exciting day for me. EDWIN CADENA: It was in January 2006, actually, a couple days after my birthday, and I went to - very early in the morning to one of the localities of the mine, this huge pit they built. And so I saw a small piece of bone on the ground, in the rock, and I started using, well, the screwdriver, and it took me almost two days actually to realize how big was and to see, oh my God, this is something new, this is something that we haven't seen in Cerrejon, but also it's something new in terms of evolution of turtles, and the size was gigantic. So that was a really cool moment for me. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Well, let's talk more about the size. I mentioned it's about as big as a compact car, but how big is its shell? How big was its head? EDWIN CADENA: So yeah, the shell is around 173 centimeters long, but that's without adding - when we add the head and the neck and the tail, we easily can have a turtle around two meters, 20 centimeters long. So it's very, very similar to the size of a small car today. So it was a really large - really large animal. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: So what do you know about how this turtle lived, what it ate, all that stuff? EDWIN CADENA: So another important thing about Cerrejon or this locality in Colombia is that for the first time in the fossil record, we can have some sort of idea of the entire ecosystem of the tropics or the neo-tropics after the extinction of dinosaurs. So - because the fossil leaves, we had the plants, we had the fruits and also we had the animals. EDWIN CADENA: So we can reconstruct the entire ecosystem of the tropics, and we know, for example, that turtles and in particular Carbonemys is, the design, the configuration of the bones of the head are very - I mean, it's possible that this configuration, the massive maxillary bone, which is actually a bone that turtles use for masticatory process, they were huge, and that implicates that probably this turtle was eating not only plants but also on the menu could be small crocodiles or small turtles, too. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: And what you're talking about the masticatory process, you mean like chewing its food. EDWIN CADENA: Yes, yes, absolutely. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: We're talking with Edwin Cadena, who found, well, this enormous prehistoric turtle. And if you want to ask any questions, 1-800-989-TALK, 1-800-989-8255. So you think even small crocodiles were something on the menu for this turtle? EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, absolutely, if - and actually when we're considering the size of this turtle, well, menus like crocodiles or meat could be beneficial for growing so - because it has a lot of protein on it. So we had - are pretty sure that - I mean, that configuration of the head, it matched perfectly with eating crocodiles. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: I want to go to a phone call here. Yuri(ph) is in Charleston, South Carolina. Hi there, Yuri. YURI: How are you doing? JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: What's on your mind? YURI: I just wanted to know what was the largest that had been found prior to this discovery, comparatively speaking. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Great question. EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, that's a very good question, and I want to point out here because this is not the largest freshwater turtle so far known. The largest turtle, freshwater turtle so far known is from Venezuela and Brazil. But it's only seven million years old. EDWIN CADENA: And we're talking about a turtle almost similar size to Stumpendemys, the biggest freshwater turtle so far known, but 50 million years older. So it's a fascinating story about how the body size in turtles evolved in the last 50 million years. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Now it's not just the body size in turtles, though. As you mentioned earlier, you found a giant snake in almost exactly the same place a few years back. What's in the water there? Why all these big animals? EDWIN CADENA: So yeah, that's really interesting about Cerrejon is also for the first time in the fossil record, we are able to test many hypotheses and many ideas that actually biologists and ecologists today have, as for example how the (unintelligible) evolved in reptiles. EDWIN CADENA: And (unintelligible), I think there are only one reason to explain why these animals get so big after the extinction of dinosaurs, and probably there are at least three factors involved in this. The first is big ecological change between the Cretaceous, when you had on land dinosaurs, and probably the ancestors of turtles, snakes, all these animals were sharing the environment with dinosaurs, probably competing for food, or even some of them could be actually the prey for dinosaurs. EDWIN CADENA: That happened on land, but also you were in water. You were a turtle that was living very close to the sea, very close to the coastal areas. You probably meet some of these marine reptiles like (unintelligible). They were killers. So a big change in ecology comparing to the Cretaceous versus the Paleocene in Colombia, when you don't have the dinosaurs on land anymore, but marine reptiles anymore on the seas. EDWIN CADENA: So that's a good opportunity for these reptiles to have more space, more sources of food. So that's one of the first factors to consider (unintelligible). The second one is also a race between predator and prey. So if a turtle increased its size so potentially the crocodiles also had to increase their size to be able to (unintelligible). EDWIN CADENA: And we have evidence in the shells, in the carapace of these turtles, that there were bite marks from crocodiles. So we know that crocodiles from Cerrejon were eating these turtles, too. So it's another factor here. EDWIN CADENA: And the last one is related to the climate. And we know based in the fossil record of plants, and also we use the body size of reptiles to estimate how was the temperature for that time, and we know that it was much, much warmer than any tropical environment today, around four or six degrees Celsius warmer. EDWIN CADENA: And that's beneficial for reptiles for increased size and also for facilitating growth. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: So that's some real global warming. We're getting lots of questions from people. One thing they want to know is how fast could this thing move. Is there any way to know? EDWIN CADENA: Well, it's really difficult to make an estimation on how fast they move because we don't have any forelimbs. So we don't have the arms or the legs to actually have an idea of the locomotion of this animal. But my idea is that this probably could be a turtle that instead of walking or swimming far distance preferred to see on the bottom of the lakes or the river waiting for the prey. So it probably wasn't too fast. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: And just so the people can picture what this looked like, is it like the box turtle that you have at home, and it's just a really big size, or what did it look like? EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, I mean, a good example of - or to have an idea is - they are like an alligator turtle, for example, but much, much bigger than that one. So that's a good example of how Carbonemys looked like. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: So one last thing for you here: Do you think that reptiles could ever get bigger like this once again? Is this ever going to happen again in history? EDWIN CADENA: Yeah, that's the cool story behind this discovery, too, that actually the predictions currently show - many biologists predict that based on the conditions that we have today, the climate change, most of the tropical reptiles, they're going to be extinct. So they are going to disappear. EDWIN CADENA: But maybe, the fossil record can tell us that actually these animals can be - adapt to these different conditions and temperature very easily. So I'm pretty sure - I mean, I say the conditions now are relatively different to 60 million years old because had less areas, and we humans are here, so I'm pretty sure some of this is (unintelligible). I'm pretty sure someone is going to get it. EDWIN CADENA: So but yeah, I mean, it is potentially - the temperature start - I mean, continue increasing, we will be expecting to see again these gigantic reptiles on the tropics. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Edwin Cadena is a graduate student at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Thanks for joining us and for sharing this amazing discovery. EDWIN CADENA: Well, thanks a lot. JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST: Now, coming up after the break, how humans became the super-omnivores we are today and the universal appeal of crunchy foods. Stay with us.

Reporting in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, researchers write of discovering a car-sized turtle they named Carbonemys cofrinii. Edwin Cadena, who found the fossil, describes the giant reptile's lifestyle 60 million years ago, and what it may have dined on—like baby alligators.

Im Journal of Systematic Paläontology berichten Forscher über die Entdeckung einer autogroßen Schildkröte, die sie Carbonemys cofrinii nannten. Edwin Cadena, der das Fossil gefunden hat, beschreibt den Lebensstil des riesigen Reptils vor 60 Millionen Jahren und wovon es sich möglicherweise ernährt hat – wie Babyalligatoren.

研究人员在《系统古生物学》杂志上发表了一篇报道，称他们发现了一只汽车大小的海龟，并将其命名为 Carbonemys cofrinii。化石的发现者埃德温·卡德纳描述了这种巨型爬行动物在6000万年前的生活方式，以及它可能吃的东西——比如小短吻鳄。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: I'm Farai Chideya, and this is NEWS & NOTES. When you think of Martha's Vineyard, you might get an image of the Kennedy family hosting a clam bake, but there's also been a significant black population living there since the colonial days. A new play called "Stick Fly" takes us into the family parlor to visit with a father, two sons and the three women in their lives. It hits issues from interracial relationships to what it means to be a man. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Unidentified Woman #1 (Actor): (As character): Not only is it problematic that we haven't stopped to consider racial tensions in our now-female-dominated society, but we haven't even begun to consider class. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Unidentified Man #1 (Actor): (As character) I'm not sure that class matters. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Unidentified Man #2 (Actor): (As character) Son, I raised you better than that. This house has been full of octoroons and quadroons for three generations, and you think our loving white neighbors wouldn't rather we move over to the bluffs with the other negroes? Cheryl, could you top me off please, dear? You can just leave the bottle, thanks. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: "Stick Fly" airs tomorrow on public radio stations and on XM Radio as part of the L.A. Theaterworks series The Play is the Thing. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Director Shirley Jo Finney and actors Carl Lumbly and Dule Hill join me in studio to talk about what it means to perform for radio, and the big issues the play tackles. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): To me, the play is about love and preserving the family, bottom line. Even though they talk about the socio-economics, they talk about race, and like there's all these different layers. But what happens - because all families have some type of secret - but what happens when you discover a lie and a betrayal? What happens to that structure, if the structure - be it a house, but also the structure of your body temple? And I think for me, that's the important thing about the - it's the base, the root. Don't you agree, Carl? Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): I do. In fact, I think that part of what was - I was drawn to was also the fact that people have different positions in families, and the difference between the way a father can love and the way a mother is allowed to love can sometimes be very, very difficult for children. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): I think father love has to leave out certain aspects of nurturing and go for a tougher kind of a stance in terms of preparing people, especially young men, for making their way into the world. And then the position you have to take sort of putting yourself on a pedestal is one, that as time moves on and your children move to adulthood, you may be toppled off just by nature of the fact that the truth is not always harmonious. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: A lot of folks know you from your television roles: "Psych," "West Wing." How is different? I mean, this is a real interesting hybrid, because you have a stage play, which people including me have seen, are seeing, and then you have the radio aspect. How do you play with those dynamics as an actor? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Oh, the radio experience is really all about the words, which I said it's enjoyable to do because it's all about the words. Everything you do comes through the piece of dialogue you say. It's not about the air in between. It's all about putting into the words, and… Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): And it's really facilitating, because first there was the word. So it's really facilitating the writer. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Carl, what do you think of that kind of hybridity? Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): Well, I love it because I think it's just another way to express your skill set. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): I think it's very similar to what we're doing now with you, why people would listen to you. I think the voice carries the spirit, and you can tell when someone is lying just by the tone of the voice. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) Yeah, this girl's a little melanin-challenged. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2 (Actor): (As character) Melanin-challenged? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) She's of the other persuasion. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) Oh, not in the tribe, huh? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) Look, she's cool, studies race dynamics in inner-city schools. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #3 (Actress): (As character) as opposed to the outer-city? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) Oh, she white. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) She's Italian. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Class dynamics. The class dynamics in this play are hilarious. The fact that the two sons bring home two different women from two different branches of intelligence, female companionship that may not always sit well with the family, is hilarious. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Tell me about Kent's fiance, Taylor(ph). Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): What is there not to say about her? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Taylor is just a bag of - because of what's going on inside her, she likes to be the center of attention, or at least in the midst of it all. She can never just sit on the sideline and observe. Taylor will push me in the direction that I want to go in terms of writing and all of my artistic dreams when my father won't give me that. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): I think each of the characters is trying to find placement, trying to find sense of self, and the illusion of father and his boundaries and the illusion of the world of structure, and here comes Taylor in this house for one weekend, and she's just buzzing around, affecting all of these people's lives. And it starts to unravel, and this secret starts to come apart. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As Kent) And this is great-great-grandfather Wickham(ph), the great captain. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) He's so handsome. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) Yeah, I got his good looks. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) You know, I've seen this picture before. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) Yeah, in your dad's book. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) Of course. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As Kent) Captain Wickham was never a slave. He was a shipper. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): Unidentified Woman #2: (As character) Of what? Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (As character) We don't talk about that. Anyway, he saved the mayor's son from a boating accident. As a reward, the mayor gave him this land on which he built this house, making the Wickhams the first blacks to own land anywhere on the Vineyard. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, Carl, tell us a little bit about what you see in terms of the class dynamics, because there's - there are all these puzzle-boxes of secrets that unfold, but then you have all these tensions about what does it mean to be - what does it mean to be black? What does it mean to be rich and black? What does it mean to be light-skinned? Dark-skinned? All this stuff. What do you like most about the different aspects that get played with in this work? Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): Well, one of the things I think I like most about the piece is that there are two women who are never seen who play as large a part in this piece as all of the people who are there. And I think that's part of what, you know, the class dynamic in this piece has to do with people who have place in this Vineyard situation. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): They have something that they don't have outside of this place. Now no matter how rich the LeVeys(ph) may be, they will never have this same "class," quote-unquote, that they would have in the white world. But here on the Vineyard, they are the top of the heap, and poor Joseph has married into the top of the top of the heap. So even he, with all of his neurosurgeon monies, is still not class enough for the Wickham family. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): Which is old-guard money. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): Exactly. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Old-guard black money. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): Yes. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's worth mentioning. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): Right, I mean, and I just want to iterate, too, so there's - that this play takes place in the summer, three days on Martha's Vineyard, where the family has a summer home. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): They went to the Vineyard because they could be themselves. You know, even though we are privileged and we work in the world and we're the doctors and the lawyers and the Indian chiefs in corporate America, etc., and having to navigate mainstream America, when they went to the Vineyard, they were social. They had interrelationships with their own. So it was that place of safety and comfort. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What about the concepts of manhood? Carl was talking a little bit earlier about the idea of father love versus mother love. Do you believe that there - it seems to me that during this play, there's a lot of discussion of what does it mean to be a man, what does it mean to be a husband, what does it mean to be a father. And it also seems like a very important time to talk about those issues in our society when you have people like Bill Cosby discussing the impact. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What do you think of the dialogue between the two brothers, who have very different outlooks on what does it mean to be a man? Does it mean to do right economically? Does it mean to do right in terms of fidelity? Does it mean to do right emotionally? Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): My son, at 19, arrived post-feminism. It was very, very important in his development. My father, pre-feminism. Very different way of articulating manhood. And I think in many ways, because I sort of - my experience spans both, I got the best of both. I think Kent is comparable to me in terms of the way men have been taught to be, and I think the difference between Kent, Spoon(ph) and Flip(ph), who is (unintelligible)… FARAI CHIDEYA, host: The other son. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): …older son is that Joe could be more of a sibling with his older son, and he could cultivate more of the idea of reputation. Kent, because of his development, he's not as interested in reputation. He wants to treat women respectfully, and he has a sensitivity that he's very conversant with. It's a large part of who he is to the world. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: But it doesn't seem as if Dr. LeVey's character respects that sensitivity. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): Well, he fears it, because I believe that's this whole thing about being sensitive. You want your sons to succeed in the world. And one of the big criticisms that Joe LeVey has about Kent is he's too soft, and as a soft, black male, you may get badly, badly hurt. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): (as character) I'm 15, and all I want like every other 15-year-old boy, is to have a cute girl like me, maybe get to second base. But I'm thinking I can't because I've got some sort of, I don't know, testosterone deficiency. My daddy made me think that. Why? Because I give a (censored) about people? Because I don't put myself first? Because I hear what women say and actually like them for it? Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): It was the same criticism that my father had for me. You're too soft. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): Yes. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): You're too soft. What will happen when you meet adversity? And what I think that generation didn't understand is that there is a tremendous supple strength that is gained when you have both your manhood and a sense of femininity in hand. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): I think in this play, especially Joseph LeVey is most thrilled at the end of the piece by the fact that he understands now that Kent speaks truth to power, and in a black family, man-to-man, son-to-father, that was not an easy thing to do. I remember when I did it, my father and I didn't speak for quite some time. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): But now, in this piece, by speaking truth to power, he changes what his father thinks about him, and it's a moment of pride that - maybe not the moment of pride that Joseph LeVey thought it was going to get. It's far greater than that, because he suddenly now realizes just how strong his son is. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Shirley Jo, on a last note, and this may be a strange last note, are you the puppeteer? It doesn't seem as if being a director in this case is like being a puppeteer. It seems like you have some very… Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): I'd call myself a conductor. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There you go. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): That's what I do. I conduct. I listen to the music, the emotional music that actors play, because that's their notes. And then when I read the score, it's my playwright's words. And I have to make sure that I cast the right instruments in the voicing so that you can take this journey, and the journey - you know, I know it's crazy, and I'm non-sequitur and fragmented, but it's the drum. What is the drum? What rhythm of the drum does this have? FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well Shirley Jo, Carl, Dule, thank you for coming in. Ms. SHIRLEY JO FINNEY (Director, "Stick Fly"): Thank you. Mr. CARL LUMBLY (Actor): My pleasure. Mr. DULE HILL (Actor): My pleasure. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: We were talking to director Shirley Jo Finney and actors Carl Lumbly and Dule Hill. "Stick Fly" airs tomorrow on public radio stations and XM radio as part of the L.A. Theaterworks series The Play is the Thing.

When you think of Martha's Vineyard, you might get an image of the Kennedy family hosting a clambake. But there has also been a significant black population living there since the colonial days. A new play called Stick Fly — airing on public radio stations — takes us into the family parlor to visit with a father, two sons, and the three women in their lives. Director Shirley Jo Finney and actors Carl Lumbly and Dule Hill join Farai Chideya.

Wenn Sie an Martha's Vineyard denken, haben Sie vielleicht das Bild der Familie Kennedy vor Augen, die ein Muschelessen veranstaltet. Aber seit der Kolonialzeit lebt dort auch eine bedeutende schwarze Bevölkerung. Das neue Stück Stick Fly, das von öffentlichen Radiosendern ausgestrahlt wird, nimmt uns mit in die Stube der Familie und besucht einen Vater, zwei Söhne und die drei Frauen in ihrem Leben. Regisseurin Shirley Jo Finney und die Schauspieler Carl Lumbly und Dule Hill begleiten Farai Chideya.

当你想到玛莎葡萄园岛时，你可能会想到肯尼迪家族举办的宴会。但从殖民时代开始，这里就有大量的黑人居住。一部在公共广播电台播出的新剧《飞棍》，带我们走进家庭客厅，探访一位父亲、两个儿子以及他们生活中的三个女人。导演雪莉·乔·芬尼和演员卡尔·伦布莱、杜勒·希尔与法拉·奇迪亚联袂出演。

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: One sports coach and 13 parents have agreed to plead guilty in the college admissions scandal that federal investigators have called Operation Varsity Blues. One of them - Felicity Huffman, the star of the show "Desperate Housewives." Anya Kamenetz of NPR's Education team has been following the story and joins us now. Hi, Anya. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Hi, Ari. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Tell us about this latest development with more than a dozen parents agreeing to plead guilty. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: So the parents as well as one coach have agreed to plead guilty in connection with this scheme. And according to one of the plea agreements at least, they may serve a few months in jail as well as paying fines and restitution. And Felicity Huffman, the actress, as you heard, is one of the more high-profile people accused. But others, including Lori Loughlin, another actress from the TV show "Full House," is among those originally accused who is continuing to fight the charges. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: What are we hearing from the parents? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Well, two of those who plead - pled guilty today issued very contrite statements. Huffman's statement reportedly said, I am in full acceptance of my guilt - deep regret and shame. And she also reiterated that her daughter had no idea. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: This story has gotten so much attention, and it seems to have really resonated with students and parents. Why do you think it has had such a big impact? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: In a word, Ari - schadenfreude. I think at this moment, whether you look at politics or society in general, there is a lot of concern about fraud, about misrepresentation, people not being who they say they are, not to mention a lot of resentment of wealth and privilege and all the trappings that come with it. And the way this story has unfolded, the fact that these families really seem to believe that the rules should not apply to them - that's been galling to many people. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: And then look at the setting, right? So elite colleges are the source of such cultural fascination. Some would say obsession. Highly selective colleges - you know, they only enroll about 1 percent of all college students. So they're very, very small. But then again, they have these brands that are known all over the world. And they're supposed to stand for merit, for hard work, for the best and the brightest. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: And so when you look at something like this or, even bigger, the legacy admissions or the fact that some wealthy donors can write a check and get their kid into college that way supposedly, it - all of this is really going to undermine the idea of having institutions in our society that represent hard work and being kind of excellent. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: So where do these cases go from here? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Well, you know, this is having a lot of different effects. So you know, some of the students have been expelled. Their admissions have been revoked. Some of the coaches have been fired. They face charges - athletic coaches who were involved in misrepresenting people as being recruits. And of course the legal cases are going to continue to unfold. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: But I'm also interested in how it's unfolding in the broader culture at large. You know, whether you look at things like - we had a big debate last year about Harvard and affirmative action. And these conversations about things like legacy admissions are really bringing us to a broader conversation about, what do these elite colleges really offer? You know, the fact that they have nonprofit status - are they really serving the public, or are they just acting in a way that's really inflating their own bottom line and their own brands? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: And so I think there's a broader conversation about, are there better ways to have admissions? And can we define excellence in education some other way other than, you know, something that's really expensive and only lets in about 5 percent of people who get to apply? ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: And for all that conversation, just in our last 30 seconds or so, do you see signs of systemic change coming? ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: I think that it's going to be a huge debate. I look forward to it in the presidential election, honestly. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: NPR's Anya Kamenetz, thanks a lot. ANYA KAMENETZ, BYLINE: Thanks, Ari.

Thirteen parents and one university athletic coach have agreed to plead guilty to charges of mail fraud and honest services mail fraud in connect with the college admissions scandal.

Dreizehn Eltern und ein Sporttrainer der Universität haben sich der Anklage wegen Postbetrugs und Postbetrugs im Zusammenhang mit dem College-Zulassungsskandal schuldig bekannt.

13名家长和一名大学体育教练承认了与高校招生丑闻相关的邮件欺诈和诚实服务邮件欺诈的指控。

FARAI CHIDEYA, host: This is News and Notes, I'm Farai Chideya. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: As part of our month-long film series, today we're going to take a look at, or rather, take a listen to, the role of music in the movies. We're going to hear from two musical giants in the film score industry. First, Stanley Clarke. He's a legendary jazz bassist, orchestrator, conductor and film score writer. He's composed music for more than 65 movies including "The Transporter" and "Boys 'N the Hood." FARAI CHIDEYA, host: In the 1970s, Stanley Clarke made a name for himself playing bass. But for the past 25 years, he's been turning his energy to film and television scoring. Clarke is now one of the most in-demand composers in Hollywood. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): Many of the films that I do are very different from one another, but there was a period where I did a lot of action pictures. I've done a lot of television, I've done a lot of - well, there's a lot of films that have a lot of African-Americans in it, I can say that. And you know, each film you have to really approach differently. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: What was your favorite? I mean, you've done so many dozens of scores. But what was your favorite, either to work on or in terms of how it came out? Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): You mentioned "What's Love Got To Do With It." That film I really liked because, you know, it's a heck of a story, you know. And the music, I had it - it's a very thematic score. If you really listen to it and really pay close attention to the music, there's a theme that - I must lay this theme over the picture maybe 10 or 15 times during the course of the picture. And the cool thing about it is that, you know, I spent a lot of time just working on that one short theme. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: So when you look at how you broke into the business, being someone who was - you know, you are - but you were in a musician role, and then you were asked to compose. Is it hard for African-Americans to break into that part of the business? Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): Yes, it's always going to be hard. Because, you know, we as human beings, we thrive on familiarity. You know, we like to - it's kind of a bit of a sad commentary. Maybe it's getting better, I don't notice it so much because I'm just a jazz musician, I'm in my own world. But I think people tend to want to be with their own kind and all that. So I have to tell you a little story. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): I remember one time - I'm not going to tell you what film it was that I did, it was a popular film, though - I walked into this room to meet these directors, and these guys thought I was a white guy before they saw me. And I walked in. (Laughing) And the look on their face, I mean it was just kind of - it was shocking, it was a shocking moment, you know, but it kind of brought a smile to my face because, you know, I take my job very serious. I was very prepared. And I was really more anxious to find out what their reaction was going to be after they spoke to me. I didn't really care of the fact that I walked in there and I had an afro and had these big shoes on, I was looking good. I didn't care so much about that. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): But when I finished my meeting with them, they were impressed, and they hired me. And I must say that when I was doing a lot of this early film composing, I have to tell you that I did have the thought like that I was kind of laying a trail there, you know, because I think at that time, it was myself, Quincy Jones, Herbie Hancock. Really a handful of film composers that have done, you know, significant work in Hollywood. Now, there's quite a few, and I feel like I was part of that. Also, at that time, there was a resurgence in black cinema. You know, Spike Lee, then John Singleton came along. I did John's first three films. And so it was a very unique time for me. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): And I - so it wasn't just me doing a film, getting paid and going home. You know, there was something else there that sort of inspired me. I felt like I was trailblazing. And that's what I did. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: How do you actually do this? I mean, do you start coming up with themes based on a script, or do you watch a rough cut? And how do you create something on a very practical level? Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): You know, we get a script. And you can start thinking about music and you can even write music from a script. But I tend to like to watch the footage, then come up with the music. And from the point that you get the footage and then you start thinking about music, you go through something called a spotting session. Meaning you have a session with the director, and he'll spot places where you want music. That's why it's called a spotting session. And once you've finished that, from that point to getting a finished product with music is what I call - half of it is magic and the other part is skill, like catching the human emotion. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): And I think that that's the part you can't teach, necessarily, to people. I think you have to have some sort of - I would like to find another word, but I can't find it. There has to be a bit of humanity in your - within your heart, you know. You have to have some understanding of people. I don't think a guy that really has no understanding about people, or has no interest in understanding people would make a good film composer. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): Because in film, you know, you're dealing with all the dynamics of life. You know, one minute, you could be dealing with love. The next minute, somebody could be getting their head cut off. The next minute, someone could be afraid to get their head cut off. The next minute could be a guy who regrets cutting the guy's head off. I mean, there's all these subtle emotions and different dynamics that you have to deal with, and somehow, you know, it has to go in your heart. And then from your heart, it has to kind of come out in music. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: There's a lot of musicians that are branching out and doing music for films. I think of the RZA. We were just talking about urban films. But he's a, you know, rap artist turned sometimes soundtrack composer. Do you see things moving in a particular artistic direction? Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): I think it's going to move in a lot of different directions. There's a lot of things happening. Number one, the directors now are younger. And they usually tend to want to have the music that they grew up with, or music that they're into at that moment, in their films. So for me, I'm kind of open. I think, you know, if you have some music in your soul, and you're able to produce it however you can, you know, there's a musician there. I do miss, you know, the old days, you know, when you do a film, you get hired and the guy says, write some music, and you write music. And you come back and you talk about that music, but not in relationship to a committee deciding based on something that some kids in Pasadena thoughy. You know, so anyway. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Well, it sounds like a fascinating business. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): Yeah, yeah, yeah. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: Stanley Clarke, thanks for talking to us. Mr. STANLEY CLARKE (Jazz Musician, Composer): All right. FARAI CHIDEYA, host: That's jazz musician and film score composer Stanley Clarke.

Stanley Clarke has more than 65 film scores to his credit, including Boyz 'n the Hood, Passenger 57, and Undercover Brother. Farai Chideya talks with legendary jazz bassist, composer, and film score composer about the role of music in the movies.

Stanley Clarke hat mehr als 65 Filmmusiken, darunter Boyz 'n the Hood, Passenger 57 und Undercover Brother. Farai Chideya spricht mit dem legendären Jazz-Bassisten, Komponisten und Filmmusik-Komponisten über die Rolle der Musik in den Filmen.

斯坦利·克拉克有超过65部电影，包括《风帽男孩》、《57号乘客》和《卧底兄弟》。法瑞·迟德亚与传奇爵士乐贝司手、作曲家和电影配乐作曲家谈论音乐在电影中的角色。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: For years, Alan Feuer got strange phone messages: a dry cleaner telling him his tuxedo is ready, for example, when he didn't own a tuxedo - a club saying he'd forgotten his attache case. He didn't own one of those, either. The New York Times reporter soon figured out that another Alan Feuer lived in New York, looked him up in the phonebook and made a call that led him not just to a namesake, but to a secret life in a fantasy world that dresses in white tie and tails. Alan Feuer joins us now from our bureau in New York. His second story on the other Alan Feuer ran in The New York Times last month. And it's nice to have you with us today. ALAN FEUER: It's nice to be here, Neal. How are you? NEAL CONAN, HOST: I'm good. Thanks. That first phone call - well, just sort of out of curiosity, I assume. ALAN FEUER: The first call that I made to Alan? Yeah, it was a funny feeling of both, obviously, curiosity and a strange sensation of being crowded in my own skin by another guy who had my same name. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And he turned out to be - well, debonair might be the word. ALAN FEUER: He was an amazingly debonair guy. He was a man of society, as I came to figure out. He was a guy who attended functions at The Plaza for the Soldiers, Sailors, Marine Corps and Airmen's Association, the Petroushka Ball at the Waldorf, the Russian Nobility Ball, the Viennese Waltz Ball - all of these crazy events that, frankly, I had never heard of, but he was - had long-standing involvement with. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And he - this was his life. ALAN FEUER: This was his life. He was the organizer of these things. He would orchestrate table settings. He was the man at the door who would greet everybody. You know, he actually invited my wife and I to one of these events one time. It was one at The Plaza. And there stood Alan, right behind the reception table as you walked in: tuxedo, tails, you know, medals on his chest. He had served in the Air Force. And he - you know, he was the host of this whole universe, really. I mean, he was involved in numerous events like this. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And among those phone messages, you used to get messages from women named Muffy explaining what a grand, smashing time they'd had. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Which got me into quite a bit of trouble at home sometimes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: I bet it did. But he turned out to have been a confirmed bachelor. ALAN FEUER: That's right. In fact, at the ball that Alan invited us to, I kind of realized 20 minutes into the thing that the main reason he had invited my wife and I was so that he could take her arm in arm, table to table and introduce her - accurately - as Alan Feuer's wife, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. And that's what he did. He just took her to like 20 different tables and, you know, round he went. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that little accent you put on and the ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, well, he had an accent, too. ALAN FEUER: He did. When I - the first time I called him up, the conversation went like this: Hello? Alan Feuer. And I said, hey, it's Alan Feuer. And he went, oh, good man. I've been meaning to call you. And he really did talk like that. That is absolutely how he spoke. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So something out of - well, a kind of a cross between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and London. ALAN FEUER: Something like that. You know, the way I pictured it was those, you know, those Preston Sturges movies where, you know, it's almost like an Anglophilic-New York accent. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, we use to call it Long Island lockjaw. ALAN FEUER: There you go. There you have it. And that's how he spoke. And he sort of had this kind of, you know, 19th-century, early-20th century, you know, English, aristocratic way about him. He had top hats in his home. He carried canes. He smoked cigarettes out of long, skinny filters. He kind of had a David Niven mustache. And he cultivated the manners of a grand gentleman. You know, he had remarkable other side-passions, but his, sort of, persona was that of this Edwardian gentleman. NEAL CONAN, HOST: A descendent of Austrian nobility, he said. ALAN FEUER: Well, one of the first things you do when you find out somebody who shares your name is say, oh, where's your family from? So I told him my family was Romanian and many had come over after World War II. And he told me when I asked him that his family was indeed descended from a sort of aristocratic Austrian family and that he was clearly not wealthy now. There had once been a family fortune, but as he put it, mother lived too long. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Mother lived too long. ALAN FEUER: Mother lived too long. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And so this acquaintance blossomed over the years, and so you got to know him a little bit. ALAN FEUER: You know, yeah, I would never say that - I would never, sort of, deign to say that we are friends. We were acquaintances. Every six months or so, there would be a drink, there would be dinner. There was this ball that they invited us to. I got invited to the Super Bowl party one year. We would catch up on the phone every now and then, and it was just the most pleasant, remarkable, unusual relationship that, sort of, coincidentally sprung out of a shared name. It was, you know, it was just this little sort of side corner of my life that I always like to touch base with. And he was a fantastic guy. And, you know, we were so different that whenever we got together it was just - it was hilarious to sit and talk. So, yeah. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And then he decides to let you write his story. You're a reporter for The New York Times and, well, that's what reporters do. ALAN FEUER: I had been after him for a long time to write this story just because I thought here's, you know, here's one of these great New York things, right? He - like I said, we had nothing in common. He lived on the East Side. I lived on the West Side. He was involved in these, you know, sort of magnificent displays of old world splendor. And at that time that I had met him, I was working out of the Newark office of the Times and was more than likely to be writing about corrupt cops or prostitutes and, you know, bad sections of Newark. ALAN FEUER: And so, yeah, you know, it was just - I encouraged him. Let me do it. Let me write about us. It's hilarious. And what he told me was, you know, it can't be done. You know, my kind of people - and he didn't say this with any trace of, you know, arrogance. He just said, my kind of people appear in the newspaper on only three occasions, and those would be births, deaths and weddings. And so, you know, none of those applied. So he really wouldn't let me do it for a long time. He developed cancer, sort of, this must have been a year and change ago. And whether that played into his decision to let me write about him, I really don't know. I didn't ask, but he changed his mind and he allowed me to write about his story - our story. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This town is big enough for both us, you wrote. And it's a charming piece. Then cancer finally claims him and you go attend his funeral. NEAL CONAN, HOST: No. Actually, I never, unfortunately, made the funeral. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, I apologize. ALAN FEUER: No, no. It's no problem. I actually found out about his death by email. I was on vacation, and I was in this little town where there was no wireless service unless you pedal into a little cafe in the middle of the town. And one day, as I did every day, to get breakfast, I went in and I check my emails when I could. And there was 20 emails in my inbox, you know, most of them from Alan's friends who had seen the story that I wrote about us last year. And they were writing to inform me that the he had passed away. And, in fact, you know, the funeral was going to be in a couple days, and I wasn't able to make it. ALAN FEUER: But, you know, among the emails that I got with these incredible links to his Facebook page because we were Facebook friends, you know, and there were literally hundreds of remembrances of him as, you know, the grand man of New York society and, you know, the ballrooms of Manhattan. We'll never see the likes of Alan Feuer. You know, one guy said the Oscar Wilde of our time has died. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Wow. ALAN FEUER: That's straight off this, you know, people from - and photographs. I think it's just an incredible outpouring of love and memory and emotion. I was amazed, you know? It was beautiful. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And one more email. ALAN FEUER: And one more email, yeah. And it was quite literally the last email that I opened. And the email said, basically, Dear, Mr. Feuer. Ever since I saw your story on the other Alan Feuer one year ago, I've been meaning to get in touch with you. I didn't want to do so while Alan was alive. Now, that he has passed away, would you like to know the truth about his background? ALAN FEUER: Well, you know, she - this woman who was, in fact, Alan's step niece. So, you know, imagine a, you know, a niece coming in by second marriage essentially. She went on to kind of flash out the family relationships, and she told me that while this life of grand society that I, in fact, had witnessed myself was absolutely true, the sort of back story that Alan had held up - Austrian blue blood, you know, mother live too long - all these stuff was, in fact, not true. And she said that, you know, if I wanted to get in touch with her, she would tell me, in fact, what the truth was. So I got in touch with her. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this is a story of a man not from Austria but, in fact, born in Brooklyn and raised in Westchester? ALAN FEUER: Yeah. You know, the Brooklyn part - so the documentary evidence that I was able to get hold of with the amazing help of the Times' research department suggested Brooklyn. And so I said that in the story. It seems that way, but clearly, he had really been raised in Mount Vernon, which is the first town in Westchester, north of the Bronx. And he grown up in sort of middle class, you know, maybe even lower middle-class circumstances. His mom was a secretary at Mount Vernon City Hall. His dad was a lawyer of a sort, though his family told me that he really made his money through owning a liquor store. And we were able to uncover a 1910 census report that suggested that his father's father, his paternal grandfather, did indeed come from Austria, though not in any sense as a blue blood. ALAN FEUER: He landed on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He lived in a tenement on Sheriff Street and eventually told the census that the language spoken at home before arriving in the United States was Yiddish. You know, I had never even thought to ask Alan whether he was Jewish or not. Frankly, I didn't care one way or the other. It just - it was - he's so effortlessly communicated a non-Jewishness. He, you know, he had this kind of Episcopalian aura about him, that was utterly unspoken yet wholly convincing. ALAN FEUER: And it just, you know, there was no doubt that this was, you know, who he was, in some sense. You know, I didn't see him every day and saw him once every six months, so I had no reason to doubt this persona that he adopted. NEAL CONAN, HOST: We're talking with The New York Times reporter Alan Feuer about the other Alan Feuer. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And a key piece of information you uncovered is that, yes, he did he served in Air Force. He did have that medal legitimately. He served in England. ALAN FEUER: He did. During the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the Air Force, and he was stationed overseas at a base in England. And, you know, it was, at some point, I'm imagining, during his stay in England that he kind of found his way into this persona. Because when he returned in 1968, to his family in Mount Vernon, he did so with an English accent that I knew so well and that others of his friends knew, with an ascot around his neck, a walking cane in his hand and that ubiquitous, you know, long, skinny cigarette filter between his lips. ALAN FEUER: And this was something that wasn't just sort of carried out on the street. He - I was told by his family that he would do this at family dinner, sort of unbroken character. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And did you ever find out why? ALAN FEUER: After the story came, I never - let's - I should back up. I never found out in time to publish this story. There was a woman who would post it on his Facebook page that she had fond memories of Alan in England. I tried several times to contact her through Facebook. She never got back. The Air Force was unwilling to tell me what English base Alan served at, because I'm not a relative. His own family did not know. There was no way to track down, you know, former military colleagues or anything like that, so no. No, I did not find out precisely why he did it. Our research department was able to locate Alan's twin brother, and Alan's twin brother was, at that time, and is now, living in the family home... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hmm, Mount Vernon? ALAN FEUER: ...where they - yeah, where they grew up. I called his brother, and I had known in advance and had been warned in advance, that he was a rough guy and just - they were estranged, he and his brother. And, indeed, you know, the first thing out of his mouth when I called was, what do you want? And so I told him, I said, curious as to why your brother felt compelled to sort of reinvent this pass for himself. And he said, I know exactly why he did it and I'm not saying anything and it's going to me with the grave. ALAN FEUER: And I thought, well, OK, that's an impressive thing to say. And so I did one of those, sort of, truthful reporter things where I told him, accurately, but also hoping to convince him further that, you know, I felt a little responsible that I had helped perpetuate a story that wasn't true. And he said, listen to me. He said, you didn't perpetuate nothing that wasn't true in my brother's eyes. And I thought that was a very powerful thought that suggested that he understood his brother and, you know, it didn't make a difference to him. NEAL CONAN, HOST: That his brother had somehow discovered a self, a real identity. ALAN FEUER: A real identity. That was one of the things that, you know, I begin to understand as I moved this to the circuit Alan's friends and his society colleagues that - one man in particular explained to me that it was his belief that Alan did not create anything, that, in fact, whatever moment occurred in England, whatever he saw or experienced there, allowed him, to a sense, discover what he already was. And, in fact, following the article, I was deluged by literally hundreds of emails from people who grew up next door to him, who went to high school with him, who were his fraternity brothers, who were receptionists at places that we would frequent, every corner of his life reaching every stage of his life. ALAN FEUER: And it was remarkable to find these little details that people had. Oh, yes, when he was in college, you know, he belonged to this - some society. I'm forgetting the name right now. But the idea of it was to perfect one's dancing and etiquette. And the next door neighbor said he was always very interested in, you know, in correct speech and in, sort of, you know, elegantly holding himself out and that this was something that just went back, back, back, back, back. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Alan Feuer tells Alan Feuer's story in two articles in The New York Times, the most recent, "The Secret Life of a Society Maven." You could find a link to that on our website. Go to npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. And, Alan Feuer, thank you so much for sharing your story. ALAN FEUER: Oh, my pleasure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Alan Feuer is a reporter for The New York Times. Tomorrow, after a gun battle outside the prime minister's house in Tripoli, we'll talk about progress and pitfalls and the ripples of revolution in Libya. Join for us that. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

In 2000, New York Times reporter Alan Feuer learned that there was another man in the city with the same name. He contacted the other Feuer — a society man in his 60s who had a British accent — but it wasn't until the elder died that the journalist learned his friend's true identity. Learn more about the late Alan Feuer in two pieces by journalist Alan Feuer, "This Town is Big Enough for Both of Us" and "The Secret Life of a Society Maven."

Im Jahr 2000 erfuhr der Reporter der New York Times, Alan Feuer, dass es in der Stadt einen weiteren Mann mit demselben Namen gab. Er kontaktierte den anderen Feuer – einen Gesellschaftsmann in den Sechzigern mit britischem Akzent – aber erst als der Ältere starb, erfuhr der Journalist die wahre Identität seines Freundes. Erfahren Sie mehr über den verstorbenen Alan Feuer in zwei Stücken des Journalisten Alan Feuer, \"Diese Stadt ist groß genug für uns beide\" und \"Das geheime Leben eines Gesellschaftsmaven\".

2000年，《纽约时报》记者艾伦·弗耶得知，这座城市里还有另一个同名的人。他联系了另一个福伊尔——一个 60 多岁的英国口音的社会人士——但直到老人去世，记者才知道他朋友的真实身份。了解更多关于已故的艾伦·弗耶的两篇文章，由记者艾伦·费耶撰写，《这个小镇足够大，容得下我们俩》和《一个社会行家的秘密生活》。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: The president and gay marriage on The Opinion Page this week. Yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," David Gregory asked Vice President Joe Biden whether he was comfortable with same-sex marriage now. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying another, all are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Then today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was asked whether he thinks gay couples should be able to marry. He replied: Yes, I do. When he's asked, President Obama says his position is evolving. In a blog post for the washingtonpost.com, columnist Jonathan Capehart argues it's about time for President Obama's words to match his deeds. Advocates point to steadily growing acceptance in public opinion polls. Opponents point out that gay marriage has lost every time it's been on the ballot, which polls suggest will happen again tomorrow in North Carolina. NEAL CONAN, HOST: So how is this debate changing where you live? Give us a call, 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Jonathan Capehart joins us from the studios at The Washington Post. His blog post "Obama Should Follow Biden's Lead on Same-Sex Marriage" appeared on the newspaper's website yesterday. Nice to have you with us again. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thank you very much, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you say that there's little to hold the president back at this point. His actions all seem to point in one direction. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yeah. All of his actions for someone who's evolving, he's pretty much evolved. This is a president who last year decided that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage at the federal level, was unconstitutional and would no longer be defended by the United States government against court challenge. This is a president who has spoken out against amendment efforts such as the one tomorrow in North Carolina, but also in New Hampshire and Maine and Washington State. JONATHAN CAPEHART: And also this is a president who has publicly come out in favor of a bill to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that's being sponsored by California Senator Dianne Feinstein that would completely repeal DOMA. So for someone who's evolving, he's pretty much evolved. The only difference is his words saying I support same-sex marriage, he won't say them. But the actions that he has taken pretty much say that he does. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, yet there are some political reasons why he might not want to. If you look at the poll results in North Carolina, there are a couple of big groups for whom the president will be relying on votes come November who oppose gay marriage. They would include Hispanics, and they would include African-Americans. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Absolutely. And I understand that. And that's the luxury of being an opinion writer. I can say what I think he should do, but I also am mindful of a lot of the calculations that are involved that would, you know, force him and his re-election team to say, you know what, hold back a little bit, particularly in North Carolina, where the last poll I saw had support for Amendment 1 - that would be the amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the Constitution of North Carolina - has 55 percent support. JONATHAN CAPEHART: North Carolina is a swing state, a state that the president won in 2008, and he was the first Democrat to win that state in a very long time. It's also the state where the president's nominating convention, or re-nominating convention, will be held later this summer. So there - as you mentioned, there are a lot of constituencies that aren't comfortable or as comfortable as Secretary Duncan, Secretary Shaun Donovan at Housing and Urban Development, or even the vice president with same-sex marriage. So while I am pushing the president to take a stand, to have his words match his deeds, I certainly understand the reticence. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And you say would ban gay marriage. That would be its effect. It in fact would define marriage as between one man and one woman. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: It doesn't explicitly ban gay marriage in that sense. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. Well, no, but... NEAL CONAN, HOST: But it's - the last poll I saw showed that it was losing among Democrats. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes. Well, tomorrow, we will see - you're talking about North Carolina? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Yes, indeed. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yeah. Tomorrow, we will see just exactly how this all shakes out and how it breaks down. One thing that I want to point out: North Carolina already, as a matter of state law, bans same-sex marriage. What Amendment One would do is attach an amendment to the state's constitution. So this would basically be piling on. The other thing that this amendment does... NEAL CONAN, HOST: It would make it very, very difficult to undo. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Correct. But the other thing that this amendment does is that it would make civil unions and domestic partnerships also illegal. So it goes a lot farther than just a simple constitutional amendment. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And this is - and the language varies from state to state, but... JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: ...well over half the states have such amendments in their constitutions now. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Correct. Correct. And no amendment that has gone up for public vote has been defeated. So it was already a steep hill to climb for those who are against Amendment One. And judging by the public opinion polls, North Carolina is not about to break a trend. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's see if we'd get some callers in on the conversation. We want to talk with you about how the debate on gay marriage is evolving, if you will, where you live. 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. We'll start with Kim, and Kim's with us from Charlotte. KIM: Hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi, Kim. KIM: I just moved to North Carolina from California, and we just fought it there in California. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Proposition 8, yes. KIM: Prop 8. And Amendment One here in North Carolina, it's ridiculous. It's not about anything except love and commitment to another person. And the fact that if I have someone in my family who is in a committed relationship, and they happen to be gay or lesbian, they are unable to get married or have a civil union. That, to me, is sad because it's about the respect and the mutuality of the bond between people. It's very frustrating. After having lived through it in California, and now we're going through it again now in North Carolina, it's just dumbfounding to me. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan Capehart, if the president chooses - should this be a political issue? It's also coming up - and, Kim, thanks very much for the call. Should this be a political issue to be resolved by the ballot in referenda, by state legislatures, or should it be an issue to be decided by the courts? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, look, I think if the courts step in and say to a state that you must honor and respect gay and lesbian relationships because the state legislature won't do it, I am perfectly fine with that. If a state legislature, the duly elected representatives of a particular state pass a bill and it's sent to the governor's desk, and the governor signs it or doesn't sign it, that is the proper way to go. JONATHAN CAPEHART: But as we saw in New Jersey, where the state legislature signed it, passed the law in both chambers, sent it to Governor Christie and he vetoed it, saying that he thought that this - that the effort should be or the question should be given to the voters through a referendum, quite frankly I think that that is the wrong way to go. The rights of a minority should not be put up for public referendum. JONATHAN CAPEHART: If that had been the case in the 1950s, in the 1960s, if people in America in general, in the South in particular, were asked to judge whether African-Americans should have the right to vote or the right to equal public accommodation, I don't think that vote would have gone the way we think it would today. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's go next to Michael. Michael is with us from Fayette in Alabama. MICHAEL: Good afternoon. If I give my opinion on President Obama's - oh, how I wish the caller screener last week had allowed me when that wonderful, you know, sociologist and economist about living on... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Michael. Michael. Michael, let's focus on today's issue today. MICHAEL: I just wish he had mentioned people with mental illness and mental retardation and... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Michael. MICHAEL: Anyway. OK. Personally, I am against homosexual marriage not just because of the first chapter of Book of Romans in the New Testament, but also because they tend to - these marriages tend not to last long enough. I've read that they tend to have easy, quick divorces, which can be devastating for children which are involved. MICHAEL: However, having said that, we must make homosexual marriage legal, complete with all of the benefits. Punitive laws will not lead them to Christ. We got - if we say we love them, we have to prove it by our actions. And, unfortunately, you're going to hear a vastly different opinion in Christian - let's put it, be honest, Protestant broadcasting. However, is it wise for... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Not just Protestants, Michael. There's a few Catholics who are opposed to it as well, but thanks very much for the call. We appreciate it. Here's an email we have from Mike in Cookeville, Tennessee: We just had a first and very successful Pride in the Park celebration in my middle Tennessee town this past weekend. It was successful and peaceful beyond anyone's expectations and attended by about 600 people. Attitudes and times are changing. As the father of a lesbian, America needs to allow LBGT individuals the pursuit of their own happiness. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Jonathan Capehart, that - in terms of changing people's opinion, as people began to understand, as more and more people came out, that this was their family, their friends, their co-workers, attitudes began to change in various places. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. Attitudes began to change. People started talking more openly. You can go back as far as the AIDS crisis in the '80s and the '90s when people started coming out and talking about who they are. You add, on top of that, what was happening culturally in terms of plays, movies, and in particular, television. Vice President Biden gave a lot of credit to "Will & Grace," the NBC show that ran from 1998 to 2006 featuring an openly gay male lawyer and his best friend, straight female roommate and then their, you know, hyperly(ph) flamboyant friend Jack, who, through those years of television, were able to, through comedy, teach people about the issues facing and concerning gays and lesbians in America. JONATHAN CAPEHART: And, you know, you can't discount the power of comedy, the power of television and the power of seeing people and learning about people through that lens, which then allows people to have their eyes open more fully and allows friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, colleagues be able to talk about these issues more openly. And you know, the first questioner, Kim, who said she moved from California to North Carolina, that is also playing a part in sort of greater acceptance of gays and lesbians because you have people who are moving from so-called progressive states like New York, California, Northeastern states and moving to places like North Carolina where there are jobs and opportunities, places that... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Just to remind that California did approve Proposition 8. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, true. Well, true. But remember, Kim, you know, was fighting Proposition 8 in California, and she gets to North Carolina where Amendment One is there. There are a lot of people like Kim in North Carolina who find Amendment One offensive and appalling and even though this amendment probably, if you believe the polls, will pass tomorrow, it says something that there are a lot of people in North Carolina who are vigorously fighting this effort. This is not something that's just going to pass easily. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan Capehart, a columnist for The Washington Post. His blog post "Obama Should Follow Biden's Lead On Same-Sex Marriage" can be - there's a link to it at our website. Go to npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. And this is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And let's go next to Stay(ph), and Stay's with us from Denver. STACY (CALLER): Hi. Thanks for having me on. My name is Stacy, and I'm calling from Denver where... NEAL CONAN, HOST: Oh, Stacey. Somebody - I apologize. I left out the C in your name. NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): No, it's quite all right. We're out here in Denver. And we're actually witnessing a change happening at a legislative level. Last year, a civil unions bill - actually, the last couple of years, a civil unions bill has been up in front of both the House and the Senate and has died. We're actually now two days away from the end of this legislative session. And we are currently seeing a civil unions bill have life, a bill - civil unions bill passed out at the Senate last week, and this week, it's being heard by the House. NEAL CONAN, HOST: It didn't pass out at the first committee. It passed out at the second committee on Friday. And then actually, it's just one step away. There are a number of Republicans who are - will support it if it can get to the full House floor. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And there's, I understand, a question of time. The clock may run out. The legislature may adjourn before a vote can be taken. NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): Yeah, that's correct. That is correct. I know that the speaker of the House right now is getting a lot of pressure, I think, from both sides to, you know, either have it die or to take it to the full House. The session will end. It does need to be heard tomorrow for it to be able to move forward and be signed by the governor who, every signal shows, is willing to sign the bill. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Stacy, thanks very much for the update. Appreciate it. Let's go next to - this is Gabriel. Gabriel with us from Norman in Oklahoma. GABRIEL (CALLER): Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: How's the conversation changing there? NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): It's not. There's a basic sanction for civil unions, but the opinion toward gay marriage is very largely negative. I live in a college town so I don't see much of it, but I hear a lot about it. NEAL CONAN, HOST: The negativity, you mean? NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): Yes. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And why is that do you think? NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): I think it's also because of fundamentalist Christian values that tend toward - they just tend from the Bible like with the previous caller. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right. Gabriel, thanks very much for the update. NEAL CONAN, HOST: (CALLER): All right. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan Capehart, the conversation is also happening in any number of churches around the country. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, it is. You've got in churches all over the country, all denominations. People are talking about this issue, grappling with his issue. There's no - I would argue that you can't paint with a broad brush that all Catholics or all Protestants or all churches are against marriage equality. I think that once people have an opportunity to start talking about these issues is when we get to see - folks get to hear where their churches stand. And then when you hear it from the pulpit, that's when people have to decide whether they are - whether they like what they're hearing from their - from the men and women of the cloth who are talking to them from the pulpit, or whether they don't. JONATHAN CAPEHART: And I think the way the demographics are shifting on this issue, gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular, the shift is moving in the right direction. It's just a matter if time when the culture and the politics all meet up. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan Capehart, thanks very much for your time. Appreciate it. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Jonathan Capehart, a columnist for The Washington Post. Tomorrow, difficult decisions we face when caring for children and parents at the same time. Join us for that. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

The White House played down Vice President Joe Biden's comments that he is "absolutely comfortable" with gay couples who marry having the same rights and liberties as heterosexual couples. Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart says President Obama should follow the vice president's lead.

Das Weiße Haus spielte die Äußerungen von Vizepräsidenten Joe Biden herunter, er fühle sich „absolut wohl“ mit schwulen Paaren, die heiraten und die gleichen Rechte und Freiheiten haben wie heterosexuelle Paare. Der Kolumnist der Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart, sagt, dass Präsident Obama dem Beispiel des Vizepräsidenten folgen sollte.

副总统乔·拜登表示，他对“同性恋夫妇享有与异性恋夫妇相同权利和自由”一事完全接受，但白宫对这一评论不予理睬。《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家乔纳森·卡佩哈特表示，奥巴马总统应该效仿副总统的做法。

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NATO is throwing a birthday party for itself in Washington, D.C., and there's one person on the guest list who is capable of putting a damper on celebrations. President Trump has had a fraught relationship with NATO from the beginning. Today Trump will meet with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. The question is whether or not the president decides to bring up his frequent complaints about the alliance. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There are many countries that take advantage of us very seriously, both at NATO and on trade. And we're paying for almost the entire cost of NATO. We're paying for a very, very substantial portion. Far greater than what it should be. And we want to protect 'em but they got to pay their bills. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe is with us this morning. Hi, Ayesha. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Good morning. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: So what are they going to talk about, Trump and Stoltenberg? I mean, I can't imagine that the president's not going to bring up these grievances. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Well, clearly, as you just heard, one of President Trump's favorite subjects is the idea that allies need to carry their own weight financially. And when it comes to NATO, that means paying 2 percent of GDP on defense spending. That's supposed to happen by 2024. The White House is saying that at this meeting with the secretary-general, the president wants to highlight what they view as a success, and that's that more members of NATO are increasing their defense budgets. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. We should point out, though, this isn't exclusive to the Trump administration. I remember being at NATO headquarters and hearing Bob Gates, then-secretary of defense for President Obama, issuing the same warning to NATO countries. It's just that this time, it's the principal. It's President Trump who's making this demand. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: That is the big difference here. In other administrations, it was not the president, and it was not so blunt as you hear with President Trump. And you do have - they are actually spending more. But the problem is, the vast majority of members still have not met that 2 percent goal, and some are not on track to even meet that target by 2024. And Germany, for example, who has kind of been on President Trump's bad side, said that it would try to meet a target of 1.5 percent by 2024, which is below 2 percent, obviously. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: But last month, there were reports of falling tax revenue accompanied by projections that they wouldn't even meet that goal. So that's not something that Trump is going to be happy about. And he's made a habit of calling out Germany. The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, told reporters yesterday that she talked with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and was assured that they will meet at least the 1.5 percent target. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: The other issue is that it's not just the money, right, that President Trump has a beef about. He has called into question NATO's very existence. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Yes. He was saying before - when he was running for president, he said that NATO was obsolete, and basically they were focused on the Cold War, they needed to be focused more on, you know, other threats, terrorism, and that they were kind of antiquated. But now as president, he's kind of changed his tune. He says, thanks to him, they're no longer obsolete. And publicly, he said that the U.S. is a hundred percent behind NATO. The problem is, because he's focused on this kind of transactional type of relationship, it's rubbed some allies the wrong way. And so you've had some tensions within the alliance. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Right. NPR White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe for us this morning. Ayesha, thank you so much. AYESHA RASCOE, BYLINE: Thank you.

President Trump often beats up on NATO allies for not living up to defense spending obligations. That's just one point of friction when the NATO secretary-general visits the White House Tuesday.

Präsident Trump verprügelt oft NATO-Verbündete, weil sie ihren Verpflichtungen bei den Verteidigungsausgaben nicht nachgekommen sind. Das ist nur ein Reibungspunkt, wenn der Nato-Generalsekretär am Dienstag das Weiße Haus besucht.

特朗普总统经常抨击北约盟友没有履行国防支出义务。这只是北约秘书长星期二访问白宫时的一个摩擦点。

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: What does the flow of migrants really look like at the U.S. southern border? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, we got a reminder in recent days that what U.S. officials call a crisis is a mixture of reality and also political stagecraft. Last week, President Trump threatened to close the border. That threat seized headlines, just like his previous threats to do the same thing. Once again, officials have now backed off that threat, at least for the moment. They say Mexico is stepping up to help with the influx of asylum applicants. But it is true that U.S. border officials are receiving large, large numbers of people. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Which you've been watching, David. So what have you been seeing? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah. I mean, you know, Steve, we've been talking about the focal point was a bridge that runs from Juarez, Mexico, here into El Paso. Now the area under that bridge has been cleared. They've moved a lot of migrants to an area of tents nearby. But there were these images of families from Central America being held behind barbed wire there. And even though that area has been moved, no one is suggesting that the rate of border apprehensions - the numbers of people crossing - is going to slow down any time soon. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, what is driving those numbers? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, you know, you ask different people, you hear different people emphasize different things. U.S. officials say that smugglers in Central America are really active right now. I mean, they're marketing themselves to families in Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala, saying that the U.S. border is, essentially, open to families who arrive with their own children. And that's really an important thing to know. If you bring your own child with you, you are generally being processed within a few days and set free into the United States with a court date scheduled. So word seems to be spreading about that. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And, Steve, I'll also tell you - I spoke to our colleague John Burnett, who is reporting, as we speak, in Mexico, right near the border with Guatemala. He says there's been a lot of information spreading on social media suggesting to people that President Trump could close the border at any moment. The message being - if you're going to make this trip, now is the time to do it. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Oh, so the president's regular threats - that get headlines - to close the border may actually drive people to hurry up and make the journey. But when people get where you are - and end up under a bridge or in a detention center or out on the street - are they saying they made the right decision? DAVID GREENE, HOST: Well, I think they're grappling with that. I mean, we've been hearing from some asylum-seekers who just didn't seem to grasp how difficult the journey is, including after their crossing into the United States. We spoke to one man from Honduras. He - we're not going to give his name for security reasons. But it was at a church here in El Paso. He was with his two kids, a girl - 11 years old - a boy - 12. And he - his family had been held under that bridge for four days after an 18-day bus trip from Honduras. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Through interpreter) I spent eight days - four days under the bridge and then they took me to jail. It was a very cold place. We were on the cold floor. If I knew we would be going through all this, I would have not come. Money is not everything in life, but we risk a lot for our children and for their future. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Are you hearing a lot of people saying they wish they hadn't made the journey? DAVID GREENE, HOST: I wouldn't say a lot. I mean, many families - they look exhausted but really relieved to be here and getting help from nonprofit groups and shelters. One Salvadoran mom we met - I mean, she made this extraordinary journey, walking some of the way through Mexico just in torn socks. She had a 5-month-old son who nearly died - I mean, fever, vomiting. Someone asked her, like, why would you do that? How dare you bring a baby through this experience? And she said the gang violence was so awful in El Salvador, she just had no choice. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. David, thanks for your reporting there. And let's move on now to some other news. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: News about Lori Lightfoot, who was a relative unknown in Chicago politics. Until recently, she had never held elective office. And when she announced a campaign for mayor last year, she was in a crowded scrum of 14 candidates. DAVID GREENE, HOST: Yeah, but then last night, she made history. She secured victory in the nation's third-largest city. The former federal prosecutor who worked in police oversight is becoming the first black woman and openly gay person to win this office. And she spoke to her supporters after the results were announced. LORI LIGHTFOOT: You know, when we started this journey 11 months ago, nobody gave us much of a chance. We were up against powerful interests, a powerful machine and a powerful mayor. DAVID GREENE, HOST: The mayor Lightfoot is speaking of is, of course, Rahm Emanuel. His popularity suffered in his second and final term as he was grappling with the city's financial woes and also an increasingly volatile relationship between the police and the black community. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Cheryl Corley has been covering this story from Chicago. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Cheryl, good morning. CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Good morning. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: How did this person emerge from that crowded field of 14 candidates? CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Well, Steve, it was just incredible. As you mentioned, Lori Lightfoot's never held political office. She has held a variety of positions in city government, though. And Rahm Emanuel actually appointed Lightfoot to head the Chicago Police Board, the independent agency that rules on disciplinary cases of police. And Lightfoot began this journey, in part, because of a 2014 fatal shooting of a black teenager - Laquan McDonald - by a white police officer. It spurred a lot of protests in Chicago, the ouster of a lot of city officials, and led to Lightfoot declaring a run for mayor. And she promised to get rid of city hall corruption and to help low-income and working-class people. And that kind of made an impact. She promised to make change. CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: And when Mayor Emanuel decided not to seek a third term, lots of other people declared a run for mayor after that - as you mentioned, 14 people in all. And Lori Lightfoot was one of the top vote-getters, along with Toni Preckwinkle, who is the chairman of the Democratic Party here. And... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, let me just ask you, Cheryl Corley, if I can - how... CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Yeah. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: ...Is it that the mayor-elect intends to address this closely followed relationship between the city and its police? CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: Well, she was the chair of a police accountability task force, which really blasted the police department and led to a Department of Justice investigation. And during the campaign, she promised to adhere to a consent decree, which came out of the Department of Justice investigation - or which was, at least, spurred by it. And that calls for a detailed list of reforms. CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: And Lori Lightfoot says it's going to take a lot. And that consent decree calls for more training for police. But she says there is another fact that must not be ignored when it comes to how officers act in particular neighborhoods... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Let's listen. CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: ...Here's what she had to say. LORI LIGHTFOOT: We also know that if - our police officers are culture illiterate, which stems from the fact that we are - live in one of the most segregated cities in the country. We recruit from those segregated neighborhoods. And we do not adequately, in my view deal, with the fact that race matters in policing. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Didn't she also talk about entrenched poverty as she was claiming victory last night? CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: She did, indeed. And she talked about the differences about the - how the West Side and South Side of the city are treated differently than the downtown area. So she's going to have a lot of things that she wants to focus on as she comes into office. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Cheryl, thanks so much. CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: You're welcome. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR's Cheryl Corley. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: OK. It takes votes to win an election, but it takes money to compete for them. And this week, we have new fundraising details from high-profile Democrats. DAVID GREENE, HOST: That's right. These numbers are for the first quarter of the year. The Bernie Sanders campaign - Tuesday - announced that it raised more than $18 million from half a million donors. Kamala Harris raised 12 million. And South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg - largely unknown before his presidential campaign announcement - has taken in $7 million. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson has been following the money primary. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Hey there, Mara. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hi there, Steve. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: So we mentioned a couple of high-profile numbers there. What stands out to you? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, all those numbers are pretty eye-popping - shows you the enthusiasm of the Democratic base. They're willing to open their wallets. But I would say Bernie Sanders, of all the declared candidates, is the frontrunner, not only in polling but now in fundraising - $18 million, half a million donors. That is a tremendous amount. Now, history tells us that Democratic frontrunners don't usually stay that way. But that's where he is today. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Well, I'm thinking about the different ways that people talk about fundraising and politics. You will say the person who raised the most is the frontrunner, in a way. Other candidates will say you don't need to raise the most, but you need to raise enough. How much does the money really matter? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, money matters. Of course, he's raised the most, and he's at the top of the polls right now. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Yeah. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: But if you ask President Jeb Bush if a lot of money matters... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: (Laughter). MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: You'll find out that it doesn't really make the difference. But it's the signs of... STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: He raised a ton of money - we should remind people... MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Yes. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: ...In 2016... MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Right. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: ...And got nowhere. Right. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: It's a sign of grassroots support. It is very important. And it's not a guarantee that you're going to be the nominee, but it means you can scale-up your operations. And especially if you're raising money in small amounts, you can go back to those people again and again. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: You know, there would be a time in presidential primaries where we would presume, looking from the outside, that it's bad for a party to have a fragmented field and a huge number of candidates. But are there Democrats who are looking at this as promising, to have so many people who are all strong and fundraising and clearly have a strong support base building up? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Yes, absolutely. It's a sign, as I said, of overall Democratic enthusiasm. People are turning out for these events to see the candidate. They're willing to open their wallets. It shows you that the Democratic base is energized and willing to do more than just cast a vote. They're willing to give money and work. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: How does that compare to President Trump's fundraising? MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Well, President Trump has raised a tremendous amount of money. He's the first president to raise money in his first two years. By the end of 2018, the Trump campaign had raised about $68 million. Two additional political action committees that function as joint fundraising committees with the Republican Party had raised an additional 100 million. So that is a tremendous amount of money - shows you the power of incumbents. It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to beat an incumbent president. In recent memory, only two have been defeated - Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: I'm also looking at this figure. The president has not only raised almost $68 million. It's said that he's spent well over $50 million already, in the early phases, promoting his re-election. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Right. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Mara, thanks so much. MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Thank you. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: That's NPR's Mara Liasson.

The border remains open and the rate of migrant apprehensions isn't slowing. Chicago elects its first African-American female mayor. Democratic presidential candidates release fundraising details.

Die Grenze bleibt offen und die Zahl der Festnahmen von Migranten nimmt nicht ab. Chicago wählt seine erste afroamerikanische Bürgermeisterin. Demokratische Präsidentschaftskandidaten geben Details zur Spendensammlung bekannt.

边境仍然开放，逮捕移民的速度没有减缓。芝加哥选出首位非裔女市长。民主党总统候选人公布筹款细节。

DAVID GREENE, HOST: Bankruptcy for farms in the Midwest rose sharply last year, and it's not just one thing that is pushing farmers over the edge. Esther Honig of Harvest Public Media reports that many of those farmers have been hit by a trifecta of trade disputes, continuing low crop prices and now extensive flooding. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Corn is pouring into a semi-trailer at Ben Steffen's farm in Southeast Nebraska. BEN STEFFEN: We're loading corn out, and we will haul it to Atchison, Kan. That's about 80 miles one way. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Steffen calls this past winter brutal. On this frigid day in March, most farmers couldn't clear their snow-packed roads, but he could, which meant he got a bit more money for his corn. BEN STEFFEN: We're in a situation where we're counting nickels and pennies on every transaction, and we're trying to capture every penny we can. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Over the last few years, farm income has dropped by half since hitting a high point in 2013. BEN STEFFEN: When you've spent five years of your life pouring your energy into a business, and you're worse off today than five years ago, it feels like a crisis. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: It's a dismal situation for many of America's commodity farmers, and it sparked concern that the ag industry may be on the cusp of a major downturn, like in the 1980s when scores of farms went out of business. One indicator could be the number of Chapter 12 filings - a special bankruptcy code for family farms. Last year, it reached nearly 500. DAVID WIDMAR: The data that I'm looking at right here suggests that actually we had higher bankruptcy rates in 2010 and 2011. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: David Widmar is an economist with the website Agricultural Economic Insights. He says while overall the farm bankruptcy rates look relatively normal, to get the whole story, you have to look at all the numbers. DAVID WIDMAR: There are a lot of check engine lights on with the dash. The metrics that we all talk about are trending the wrong way. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Metrics like farm income. Widmar says trade disputes have hurt markets and slashed exports of major crops like soybeans. And Nathan Kauffman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City says that means excess grain is piling up, and it's pulling prices down to at or below the break-even mark. NATHAN KAUFFMAN: Whatever may or may not happen with trade policy, I think those supplies are likely to continue to weigh on commodity prices for the foreseeable future. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Kauffman is watching to see if this drags down other key financial indicators, like loan repayment rates and land values. At the moment, he says it doesn't look great but... NATHAN KAUFFMAN: It certainly has not gotten to the point where I think that we would call it the kind of crisis that we saw playing out in the 1980s. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: But tell that to the farmers in states like Nebraska and Iowa, where recent floods killed livestock and drowned hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of crops. Nebraska farmer Ben Steffen says he dodged the worst of it, but if prices and trade continue to slump, he, along with many others, may have to file for Chapter 12. That's because this special bankruptcy code helps farmers resettle debt and stay in business. And if that happens, lawmakers want to be ready. CHUCK GRASSLEY: I'm also going to push ahead with reform of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because we need to update that law. ESTHER HONIG, BYLINE: Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says he wants to make sure more farmers can qualify for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. To do that, he's proposing more than doubling the amount of debt they're allowed to take on from around $4 million to about $10 million. For NPR News, I'm Esther Honig. DAVID GREENE, HOST: And Esther's story came to us from Harvest Public Media, a reporting collaboration focusing on agriculture and rural issues.

Bankruptcies for farmers in the Midwest have risen sharply. Some farmers have been hit by a trifecta of bad circumstances: trade tariff disputes, continuing low crop prices and extensive flooding.

Die Insolvenzen für Landwirte im Mittleren Westen sind stark angestiegen. Einige Bauern wurden von einem Dreierlei schlimmer Umstände getroffen: Handelstarifstreitigkeiten, anhaltend niedrige Erntepreise und ausgedehnte Überschwemmungen.

中西部农民的破产数量急剧上升。一些农民受到了三重打击：贸易关税争端、持续的低农作物价格和大面积洪水。

NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan, in Washington. After 19 months in house arrest, a blind Chinese dissident named Chen Guangcheng escaped, it's widely believed, to the safety of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. That news comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrive for a conference planned to focus on economics. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Now that agenda could also expand to cover the Obama administration's plans to sell new fighter jets to Taiwan and to the U.S. role in the still-developing mystery of the now-disgraced former Central Committee member Bo Xilai. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Human rights are of course important, but how important when China holds so much U.S. debt, manufactures so many of our consumer products, when the administration hopes for Chinese support on North Korea and Syria and Iran? 800-989-8255 is the phone number. Email us: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Later in the program, a White House advisor breaks the official silence on drone strikes. We'll listen to a big chunk of an important speech. But first, China, the U.S. and human rights. Rob Gifford is China editor for The Economist, of course NPR's former China correspondent. He joins us now from the BBC studios in Oxford. Rob, we can't keep you off the program. ROB GIFFORD: It's good to be back, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And I have to begin by asking you: This escape from house arrest to, what, some 350 miles from Beijing, this is a remarkable story. ROB GIFFORD: It is a remarkable story when you consider how they - how hard they were trying on the ground in the village where he lived to keep him in. They'd built a huge wall. They had dozens of security people around it. And somehow, a blind man on his own, with a little bit of help once he got out, managed to get out. It's an extraordinary story. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And now arrived, we think, at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. And it puts him and it puts the United States in a delicate position. ROB GIFFORD: It does. It puts - and it puts the whole relationship in a delicate position, which is why we haven't heard anything about it from either side. You can imagine - I mean, I've spoken to people who are involved in the escape, and they say they are 100 percent certain he is under U.S. protection. So I think there is probably a lot of negotiating going on behind the scenes. ROB GIFFORD: And the big difference here, I think, is, compared with other activists and dissidents in the past, is that Mr. Chen has said very clearly he does not want to leave China. ROB GIFFORD: His treatment on the ground in this very rural part of Shandong Province was very bad. He served a four-year prison sentence on what many believe were trumped-up charges. But he has said - he's 40 years old. He has said he does not want to leave China. And that I'm sure is the complicating issue because otherwise he would probably have been on a plane already with perhaps a scholarship to a major law school in the United States in his pocket. NEAL CONAN, HOST: There are also the issue of his family. His wife and children are still there, as other relatives. They have reportedly been beaten up several times by these guards. And remind us: Yes, he did a prison term, but he's not currently under any charges, and as I understand it, there is no such thing as a formal house arrest system in China, all of this extra-legal. ROB GIFFORD: Exactly. And what happens often in China is that basically the local Communist Party secretary is really the king in his own fiefdom there, and if you do things which cause problems for him, he can call on all sorts of powers to do this to you. Sometimes, it's with the approval of higher authorities, and sometimes it isn't. ROB GIFFORD: And I think in this case, the interesting thing is that until about 2005, Chen Guangcheng was being lauded by local authorities, and even authorities higher up, for his activism on behalf of the rights of disabled people. He, hiHeHe mself, has been blind since childhood. He taught himself the law. He is completely - he taught himself everything, basically. He had a very basic education himself as a young man. And he was helping the disabled, and they said that was great. ROB GIFFORD: But there is a line in China that you can't step over, and he stepped over it and started mobilizing to try and use the law to gain protection for - especially for women who were being forced to have abortions and to be forcibly sterilized under the country's one-child policy. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Also you mentioned he wanted to stay in China. He issued a challenge on the Web, in a video that he posted to the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, saying: You call yourself a reformer. I'm being held here against the law. Is this - either you should enforce the law and get me free, or is this being controlled by higher-ups? ROB GIFFORD: That's right, and I mean, this is the 21st-century version of a time-honored Chinese tradition of basically petitioning the emperor, and this has always gone on. And many Chinese people believe and have always believed that the emperor himself, in this case the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, is good and benevolent, and really it's only the dreadful local officials who are causing the problems. ROB GIFFORD: And, you know, sometimes that has been true in history, and sometimes it is true to some extent today. Often it is the local officials causing the problems. By appealing to Wen Jiabao in very respectful terms, though, in this video that was put on YouTube, you know, he has raised the profile of his appeal. He's brought himself to the notice of the central authorities, if they didn't know about him already, which I'm sure they did. ROB GIFFORD: But he has also, yes, raised the stakes, and he has raised - you know, he's saying basically I'm not a criminal, I haven't done anything wrong, I just want you to respect the rule of law, and that's what this all comes down to. He is trying just to get the Chinese Communist Party to respect the rule of law. ROB GIFFORD: The laws, it has a very complete book of laws, of respecting - of people's rights and to believe and do whatever they want. It's just that those laws are not adhered to, and all the power remains in the hands of the Communist Party leaders all the way down the food chain. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And that brings up again the amazing case of Bo Xilai and his wife. We are finding out more details of what happened, including what happened the last time a prominent Chinese went to U.S. consular protection, in this case, this was Bo Xilai's vice-mayor and former police chief, apparently in fear of his life from his former boss, went to a U.S. consular office and said my boss is about to kill me because I asked him about murder charges against his wife. ROB GIFFORD: Yes, I mean, you couldn't - you really couldn't make it up, could you? I mean, it's just - and in terms of, you know, news from China, China, there's amazing things happening all the time, and it's a very sort of documentary news story, if you like, the rise of China. ROB GIFFORD: And as someone said, you know, it's - in terms of big news stories that are happening, it's like London buses. You wait ages for one to come along, and then two come along at the same time, and in terms... NEAL CONAN, HOST: You lived along the banana line, too, they always come in bunches. ROB GIFFORD: That's right. And in fact, I think it's very interesting, though, especially as Hillary Clinton and Tim Geithner arrive in Beijing that this is happening, and you have two very high-profile fugitives, essentially, both really fearing for their lives. Where are you going to go? Your life is in danger, where is the place I can go? And guess what? They both said: I'm going to the American embassy or consulate. ROB GIFFORD: And I think that says a huge amount. It says a huge amount for the lack of rule of law in China despite the many, many amazing things that are going on in China, the fantastic things and the improvement in many people's lives that is happening right the way across China. The lack of rule of law for anyone who falls foul of the authorities is still very apparent. ROB GIFFORD: And I think that that shines the spotlight, really, on America's role still, and there's been much - there's much propaganda, if you like, that comes out of Washington, and there's much sort of patriotic chest-beating that goes on, but in the end, America is still seen as a beacon of those freedoms. And I think the pressure is very much on Hillary Clinton to fulfill that role and to stand as the guarantor of some of those freedoms in these cases. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Well, in the first case, though, of Mr. Wong, he was not turned over to the forces of Bo Xilai. ROB GIFFORD: Yes, sorry, I should say Chen. I mean generally speaking. NEAL CONAN, HOST: No, I understand, but in the case of Mr. Wang, he was turned over to authorities in Beijing, where he apparently had some friends. He was - his life was not put in danger. But he was apparently not the - not Caesar's wife, shall we say, and the United States was not going to provide him sanctuary. I think it's very different for Mr. Chen, no? ROB GIFFORD: It is, it is very different. I apologize. It's Mr. Chen I'm really talking about, but it is interesting. I mean, Wang Lijun really thought he was going to be killed, I think. He was fearing for his life, and that was the point I was making was that that was the place that he decided to run for. ROB GIFFORD: Now what happened, of course, is that he was denied asylum, if that is what he was seeking, and we have to sort of say we really don't know. And in the end, I think, that is part and was part of a big power struggle that was going on at the upper levels of the Communist Party, with all the sort of bizarre details that are now coming out, and who knows how many of them can be believed. ROB GIFFORD: I personally think that the Chen Guangcheng incident is much more important for what it says about China generally. It's not about one specific incident. It's not about one specific power struggle, interesting and important though those things are down in Chongqing and at the U.S. consulate in Chengdu. ROB GIFFORD: Chen Guangcheng gets much more to the very heart of where China is, you know, where it's at with its development, where it's at with the rule of law. This is a guy who just wants to serve the people of China, to make their lives better. And there are people - this is the other important thing: There are people like him right the way across China. ROB GIFFORD: He's become kind of the poster boy of activism, if you like, in China, and he's a very noticeable one, recognizable one, because he's blind and because of his personal situation, but all over China in all counties there are people liking him who are trying to do this and who are struggling against the odds. In a situation, as I say, where many lives have been improved, there is still this issue of rule of law that is meaning that many people's lives are not. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And let's throw another pressure point into the mix, an old one: Taiwan. We'll continue our conversation with Rob Gifford in just a moment. This is NPR News. NEAL CONAN, HOST: This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan. China and the U.S. this week face a perfect storm, as one analyst put it. There's a dissident widely believed to be under the protection of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, a plan to sell new U.S. fighter jets to Taiwan, the ongoing political murder mystery involving a former provincial communist leader, the U.S. hopes for Chinese support on Iran, North Korea and Syria. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Chris Johnson, a former CIA China analyst, said this could be the biggest bilateral mess we've faced in a very long time, all just as Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, and Tim Geithner, secretary of treasury, arrive in Beijing for long-planned talks on the economy. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Human rights are important, of course, but how important? 800-989-8255. Email talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. That's at npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Our guest is Rob Gifford, now China editor for The Economist. Susan Shirk now joins us, former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs, now professor of China and Pacific Relations at the University of California San Diego. And good of you to be with us today. SUSAN SHIRK: Thank you very much. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And is this a perfect storm of a mess? SUSAN SHIRK: It certainly is. And I remain a bit optimistic that all of these shocks may jolt the Chinese leadership into taking some positive steps to try to restore their reputation in the aftermath of the revelations of criminality and corruption related to the Bo Xilai affair and now Chen Guangcheng's petition to Premier Wen Jiabao and that just maybe they will see this as an opportunity on the eve of their leadership turnover to take some modest steps in the direction of political reform. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Much of the Central Committee is being replaced later this year. That was - some of that was involved in the maneuvering over Bo Xilai, but let me ask you: The administration could not have anticipated that a dissident would flee to the embassy, of course, but just before the secretaries of state and treasury are set to arrive in Beijing, the White House issues a letter pretty much confirming that it's changed its mind and will now sell fighter jets to Taiwan. That can't be a mistake in timing. SUSAN SHIRK: Oh no, actually, the timing is related to getting the confirmation of a senior official in the Defense Department, and a member of Congress had put a hold on the nomination. NEAL CONAN, HOST: John Cornyn, senator from Texas. SUSAN SHIRK: Right, until - Senator Cornyn until he got - you know, he was assured - he cares about these fighter jets. I assume that - Lockheed-Martin is of course based in Texas, and that he wanted the White House to say that they would sell these jets. The White House satisfied him by saying that they would give it serious consideration, which really is not much of anything. So it was really a U.S. domestic political story. NEAL CONAN, HOST: All right, so the Chinese aren't going to respond to this, you don't think? SUSAN SHIRK: Oh no, the Chinese always respond to anything we do related to Taiwan arm sales, but - and in fact they could respond quite strongly in the talks with Secretary Clinton because they're going to have to cover that flank if they're going to make any compromises on Chen Guangcheng. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Is it conceivable to you - what kind of outcome do you anticipate on this man? SUSAN SHIRK: I expect that they will allow him to leave and to rid themselves of the problem. I - if they don't allow him to stay in China and don't allow him to leave, and he remains under our protection in China for an extended period of time, that will really be extraordinarily difficult for the bilateral relationship. SUSAN SHIRK: So much as they will hate to allow him to leave, I don't think it's an option to allow him to stay because even though that's his first choice, and we also would like that because maybe again that will signify some move to show they really respect rule of law, it would probably be combined with firing the local officials and, you know, some strong gestures, at least in the direction of rule of law. SUSAN SHIRK: That would be the best outcome, but how do we monitor his situation? How do we assure ourselves of the good treatment of Mr. Chen, his family and his associates? It's hard for me to see how it could be done. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Let's get a caller in on the conversation. Let's turn to Dan(ph), Dan with us from Buffalo. DAN: Hey, my one question is: If we end up getting, you know, all these rights made for him and guarantees of freedom and everything, how do we know that that's not just a smoke-and-mirrors kind of thing that gets us pushed off, and when he gets back, they just remove him completely by either killing him or, you know, oppressed him even more and making it impossible, inspiring those - or harming those who help him get out just so they don't, you know, if you do it again, and they set an example. DAN: And my second question is, this one kind of came up when I was talking to a friend on hold: We don't communicate very well with Cuba, from my understanding, because they're a communist nation. That's what I've been always been told. I could be 100 percent wrong. But we're OK with talking to Russia and China. Can you comment on that and either clarify or figure out what's wrong with this? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Russia formerly a communist nation, but Rob Gifford, on that first point, is there any way that we can guarantee Mr. Chen's safety if he does stay in China? ROB GIFFORD: No, there's not, quite apart from the domestic implications in the United States of any - of the - you know, of Hillary Clinton essentially and the diplomats in Beijing agreeing to release Chen Guangcheng back to what they would say is not Chinese custody but basically to hand him back to the Chinese. I think it would be very difficult to monitor even though if you're talking about wanting to push forward the rule of the law and the development of the rule of law in China, that would probably be the thing that you would want to do. ROB GIFFORD: The problem with letting him get on a plane and persuading him to get on a plane because that's what we understand, that he needs to be persuaded, he doesn't want to go, is that he will be taken out of the mix. And so that will be the problem off the hands of the Chinese, and they won't do anything more in order to move towards more rule of law until the next guy comes along and causes them a problem. ROB GIFFORD: Nothing is being dealt structurally at all with - because they're worried about the implications of moving down that road of any kind of even minor political reform. I think that, you know, if he leaves the country, that just gives China more space just to go back to what it was doing before until another case blows up. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Susan Shirk, on Dan's other point, you spoke of the domestic political implications of the F-16 reconsideration. Certainly Cuba comes into that, as well. SUSAN SHIRK: Certainly. I'm not going to comment on U.S. policy toward Cuba because that's way outside my expertise, and it seems pretty irrational but very American. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Dan, thanks very much for the call. Let's see if we can go next to - this is Steven, and Steven with us from Wyndham, Connecticut. STEVEN: Hey, thanks, TALK OF THE NATION, for taking my call and letting me have my say. I kind of agree with one of Dan's points, that we should really hold the line for this blind guy because we're holding the line for not just that one guy but for everybody in China that's looking up for us, not only in China but all around the world. If we drop the ball on this one guy, people are going to go, like, you know, hey, they're not all that special. We've got to hold the line, fellows and ladies. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And what does holding the line entail? STEVEN: Well, if he doesn't want to leave, let him stay in the embassy. I - you see, that's the tricky part. If he doesn't want to leave, what are we going to do, let him stay in the embassy? We've got to - there's some way we've got to integrate this guy back into Chinese society. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Susan Shirk, I'm certainly old enough to remember Catholic cardinals living in U.S. embassies behind the Iron Curtain for decades. This is, to put it mildly, extremely awkward. SUSAN SHIRK: It's really a tragic situation because if Chen Guangcheng leaves China, his influence, his role in pushing positive change forward will end, and he has so much to contribute. So it really is very tragic. And of course if he's holed up in the embassy for a long period of time, he's really not going to be able to play a normal role in China, either. We'll have to keep him quiet. You know, frankly it'll be a new form of house arrest. It'll be terrible. SUSAN SHIRK: So it's just a very tragic situation which really points to the negative direction China has taken in the past few years of allowing the security apparatus to just balloon to such a large size and dominate so much of Chinese politics. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And Rob Gifford - Steven, thanks for the call. Rob Gifford, you say you've spoken to some of Mr. Chen's friends, those who helped him manufacture this escape. Given he's no dummy - he had to know these were his options - what made him so desperate as to make the climb over that wall in the dark and escape to the U.S. embassy? ROB GIFFORD: Very interesting question. And I haven't got to the bottom of that. I'm not sure anybody has. Either his situation under house arrest was so desperate that he just - or there were some greater threats to his life in some way that we don't know about, that he knew - as I mentioned earlier - that this was the only chance of getting - of safety of some sort. Or he was persuaded to do so without fully knowing the consequences. And that, I think, is slightly difficult to believe, just because, you know, he is just a rural activist. ROB GIFFORD: So he's not some highly educated guy, but he's a fairly savvy kind of guy in a lot of the things that he has done. And it does surprise me slightly, because he must have known that if he got into the embassy, you know, the choices might well be limited - or else he was very naive about that. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And the fact that China is covering up - suppressing all reporting on this story inside China - I guess that comes as no surprise, either. ROB GIFFORD: No. That's right. I mean, they did the same with Bo Xilai, Wang Lijun down in Chongqing. But, as always, I mean, in so many ways, the microblogs, there are 300 million people on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter talking to each other, tweeting about these things. They found a lot of ways to get round the bans and the censorship. I heard - in fact, I haven't checked this, but I was just reading that everyone is using these code words. And the most recent one that people are using is the phrase "Shawshank Redemption" to talk about the movie... ROB GIFFORD: ...where the guy hides his clothes to make it look as though he's in the bed, which is what Chen Guangcheng apparently did. So they use these code words to get around it. And, I mean, I think in so many ways, the genie is out of the bottle in terms of people talking to each other and being empowered by that experience. I think the general - there's often talk about this censorship issue, and it's very real, and people are prevented from saying things and searching for things that they want to search for. ROB GIFFORD: But there is a sort of empowerment in just being online in China and being on the microblogs, even if you can't necessarily talk about these specific issues. And, you know, you've got tens of thousands of censors, and they can track you down if you say something controversial. But, as I say, there's 300 million people on there. They can't track every tweet. And there is a lot of impact that just having the power to tweet like that, even on non-sensitive issues, is bringing to the people of China. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rob Gifford of The Economist magazine. Susan Shirk also with us, professor of China and Pacific Relations at the University of California, San Diego. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION, from NPR News. And let's go to Monica, Monica calling from Buffalo. MONICA: Yes. Hi. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Hi. MONICA: I wanted to throw into the mix the - into the mix of the discussion the fact that we are so tightly involved with China economically, as in importing so many of their goods, including electronics, to the United States, and who knows what they're implanting there, possibly. But I wonder if that could somehow play in our favor to free this guy? NEAL CONAN, HOST: Susan Shirk, we are their market. They are our banker, to put it very, very broadly indeed. Does not that give us some leverage, here? SUSAN SHIRK: Well, theoretically, I suppose it does. But realistically, having boycotts of Chinese goods - citizen boycotts very rarely are effective in any historical time and place. And for the United States to impose trade sanctions at this point, I think, we're too worried about starting off a protectionist trade war, given that the global economy is so much down in the dumps. So I don't think it's a kind of leverage - that it's very difficult for us to use without shooting ourselves in the foot. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Thank you, Monica. And another issue we've failed to talk about in terms of human rights is the perennial one of Tibet. We have more and more monks immolating themselves to protest Chinese policies in that part of the world. And that, it seems, Susan Shirk, that's bound to come up, too. SUSAN SHIRK: Oh, for sure. That is another perennial subject of discussion and focus of great frustration on the part of the United States. When I was in government, we thought we were making some progress when President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin, in a televised press conference, discussed the Dalai Lama. And President Clinton urged Jiang Zemin to have - open up a dialogue with him, but they're just very hard-over. And it's a very frustrating issue. NEAL CONAN, HOST: And, Rob Gifford, given these - given the stakes involved here, the secretary of state has to tread very carefully. ROB GIFFORD: Yes, I think she does. I think she's got - even before Chen Guangcheng jumped over the wall of the embassy, or whatever it was that he did, I think, as always, there are a huge number of issues on her plate. And, of course, the China-U.S. relationship is the big relationship. And this is really the difficult path that she is having to walk. There are all these issues - strategic and economic - between China and the United States. And she's having to juggle all of those, as is Tim Geithner. ROB GIFFORD: But alongside that now, she has this big issue of human rights, which her - perhaps had received less focus. And she was criticized in 2009 for suggesting they weren't going to put as much focus on human rights during the Obama administration. And so she is having to juggling - to juggle all these things, push - putting pressure on China, and to maintain a stable relationship, which is crucial for the world at the same time. So it's a very, very difficult task. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rob Gifford, as always, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it. ROB GIFFORD: Thank you, Neal. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Rob Gifford, China editor for The Economist. Susan Shirk, we appreciate your coming in today, as well. SUSAN SHIRK: My pleasure. NEAL CONAN, HOST: Susan Shirk, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs, with us from our bureau in New York. Coming up, a White House official says, for the first time in public: Yes, the U.S. uses drones to attack terrorist targets. Stay with us. It's NPR News.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's China visit comes at a fragile moment in diplomatic relations. Some analysts describe the Chen Guangcheng and Bo Xilai incidents as a "perfect storm" that will test the relationship between the U.S. and China. Rob Gifford, China editor, The Economist Susan Shirk, professor of China and Pacific Relations, University of California San Diego

Der China-Besuch von Außenministerin Hilary Clinton und Finanzminister Timothy Geithner fällt in einen fragilen Moment der diplomatischen Beziehungen. Einige Analysten beschreiben die Vorfälle von Chen Guangcheng und Bo Xilai als \"perfekten Sturm\", der die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und China auf die Probe stellen wird. Rob Gifford, China-Redakteur, The Economist Susan Shirk, Professorin für China and Pacifik Beziehungen, University of California San Diego

国务卿希拉里·克林顿和财政部长蒂莫西·盖特纳的中国之行正值外交关系的脆弱时刻。一些分析人士称，陈光诚和薄熙来事件是一场“完美风暴”，将考验美中关系。罗伯吉福德，《经济学人》中国编辑谢淑丽，加州大学圣迭戈分校中国与太平洋关系教授

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: And this is The Call-In. Today we're talking about the airline industry. None of us can quite forget the viral video of the passenger who was forcibly removed from that overbooked United flight. That episode and other recent incidents have tapped into something of a collective outrage over flying. So we wanted to know what it's like for you. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Hi. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: Hi. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: Hi, I'm calling in about my recent experience with an airline. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #3: I just can't stand the way that I'm crunched into a little bit seat. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: As a former airline employee, my biggest tip... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #4: Make sure that you're flying on a family-friendly airline. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #5: My husband can't even fly anymore because it's so uncomfortable. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #6: That's it. Thank you. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: Thanks, bye. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: We invited Scott McCartney, writer of "The Middle Seat" column in The Wall Street Journal, to help us understand the forces driving the industry, and he points to deregulation in the late 1970s as a big factor. SCOTT MCCARTNEY: What changed with deregulation was basically opening up air travel to the masses. The price to fly has come way down, and the number of people flying has gone way up. But with that has come intense price competition that has driven prices down and forced airlines to find ways to really cheapen their product. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: This past week, the House and the Senate held hearings on the airline industry's customer service problem partly in response to the United incident. So can Congress do something to change the things that people hate, you know? And if they can, how motivated are the companies to make those changes? SCOTT MCCARTNEY: Well, I'm not sure a Republican Congress is going to increase regulation of a private business. I think there's a lot of pounding the table right now because people in Congress know that the public is upset with airlines. There certainly could be regulatory changes. Congress has, in the past, passed changes. Just a simple one not too long ago - requiring that airlines refund baggage fees for passengers whose bag doesn't get there on time. SCOTT MCCARTNEY: I think the main issue right now is passenger rights. Airlines - the legal document that goes with your ticket is called the contract of carriage, and airlines have been free to write their own rules. The passenger is really disadvantaged in that. You know, just this week American Airlines moved to shrink the size of rows on some of their new airplanes, in some cases, down to 29 inches... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Oh. SCOTT MCCARTNEY: ...Of what used to be 32 inches. And so you can... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Even the thought of that makes me feel cramped. SCOTT MCCARTNEY: Yeah. No, it is. And it's not just the leg room. It's how you feel more condensed into the cabin. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Can Congress, though, get involved and say, OK, we can have a passenger bill of rights, for example? I mean, would that be something that you think would be a good idea? SCOTT MCCARTNEY: I think Congress has tried in the past with different passenger bill of rights, and there have rarely been strong changes that have come out of that. I really think this is a situation where the industry has to solve its problems. And airlines will say, well, people want low fares so this is what we have to do. But I do think there is a limit, especially at a time when the industry is making lots of money, to how low you can go. And the industry has to realize that, and it's very hard. SCOTT MCCARTNEY: At different times in the industry's history, airlines have tried to say, OK, we will offer a better product and people will pay a higher price to come fly us and that has not been the case. So it's on the consumer as well as the airline. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: But what does the flight crew think? Gailen David was a flight attendant for American Airlines for 25 years, and it was his dream job for a while. GAILEN DAVID: It was such drastic change when you looked at the leg room being cut, when you looked at meals being cut - all the extras that passengers had become used to. And it was done because of, you know, economic reasons and so forth. But it started to feel like for the passengers and the employees, as well, that there was a little bit of greed involved. GAILEN DAVID: And it was just making everyone so uncomfortable and inconveniencing them. And I think that that's one of the things that I hope passengers realize is that for flight crew, when the passengers are suffering, we are suffering as flight crew. And we hate to see them uncomfortable. And we're the biggest advocates for passengers. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: I guess, you know, it's important that you say that because oftentimes - and we've seen this over and over again in some of these viral videos - you know, you guys are the ones that are bearing the brunt of some of the anger. You're the public face of that. Is that how it feels? Like, you're on the front lines? GAILEN DAVID: Yes. You know, when flight attendants first came to be when they used to be called stewardesses and stewards, you know, they were an airline's hospitality face. So when a policy is changed in the board room, and they come up with another idea to make money and so forth, the flight attendants and other frontline employees are always the ones that have to deliver that to the customer and enforce these policies and so forth. And so it does feel that way to the customer. When behind the scenes, it's the worst part of their job to have to see the service degraded in any way. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: I mean, you keep on referencing this, and I think it's important to understand that a lot of the airline employees have been through all these consolidations. They've had all these different things thrown at them. The airline industry has been in such flux for so long. Has that really affected the morale of people who are employed? GAILEN DAVID: It has. And you know what? Let's go back and look at September 11 when they - the airlines really used that as a way to get out of a lot of things. They stopped serving meals. They started - that was the beginning of unbundling an airline ticket to where you used to buy a ticket, and it included everything. They were able to then say, you know what? It's for economic reasons. We have to unbundle this. We have to start charging for every little thing. GAILEN DAVID: You would have thought that once they had figured out how to create billions of dollars in extra revenue through the ancillary sales that they then would have come back and said, listen, now we can put back some of the comforts that we took away. That hasn't happened. It's - now it's let's see if we can squeeze the passengers even more. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: So what are the top things you'd like to say to flyers? It could be advice or request on behalf of the airlines. What should we the flying public know? GAILEN DAVID: I would say that when you're choosing an airline ticket really be aware of what that ticket includes because when you get to the airport, you're going to be charged for this and charge for that. Know up front - it will decrease your anxiety and your frustration. And if you like all those little perks like boarding first and all of that sort of thing, go ahead and get that. And it'll just... LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Pay for it? GAILEN DAVID: Yes, just go ahead and pay for it. It's the environment we live in now. And another thing I would say is to look at the flight attendants and other frontline as your friends as you go through the experience. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: Be nice. GAILEN DAVID: Yes. Be nice and realize that they really are doing their jobs. I hate when they tell me to turn my phone off. I really do. But I always have to talk to myself and say, you know what? This is their job. Just do it without even being asked, if you can. And it just makes everything easier. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST: That was Gailen David, host of the TV show "The Jet Set." And next Sunday is Mother's Day. We want to hear your stories about the joys and the heartaches of motherhood. What lessons did you learn from your mother - good and bad? Were you ever estranged from your mother, and how did you make up? Did becoming a mother bring you a new understanding of your own mother? Call in at 202-216-9217. Leave us a voicemail with your full name, where are you from and your experience. And we may use it on the air. That number again, 202-216-9217.

This week on The Call-In: airline travel. NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Wall Street Journal columnist Scott McCartney and former flight attendant Gailen David.

Diese Woche bei The Call-In: Flugreisen. Lulu Garcia-Navarro von NPR spricht mit dem Kolumnisten des Wall Street Journal, Scott McCartney, und der ehemaligen Flugbegleiterin Gailen David.

本周Call In节目：航空旅行。NPR的露露·加西亚·纳瓦罗与《华尔街日报》专栏作家斯科特·麦卡特尼、前空姐盖伦·大卫进行了交谈。

LYNN NEARY, HOST: Silicon Valley has a knack for telling you what you didn't know you need. And recently, venture capitalists thought you needed the Juicero, a high-tech juice press. It's like a Keurig machine for coffee - but for juice. The internet-connected machine squeezes juice out of a single-serving bag of chopped fruits and vegetables. Turns out, you can squeeze out the juice by hand. You may have seen the Juicero in your social media feed courtesy of Bloomberg's Olivia Zaleski. Olivia Zaleski joins us now to explain. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Thanks for being with us. OLIVIA ZALESKI: Thanks for having me. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Now, this piece of yours went viral because - I think because people couldn't believe that investors didn't know that you could actually achieve the same results as this very high-cost, high-powered machine - that you could achieve the same results with your bare hands. OLIVIA ZALESKI: Yeah. Well, the reason that investors didn't know that the bag could simply be squeezed is because they ploughed a lot of money into this concept based on a 3-D printed, nonworking prototype. And I think that says a lot about Silicon Valley at the moment. There is a lot of money, and there is a lot of interest in hardware that has a recurring revenue stream around a subscription model, which is exactly what Juicero had. You would buy the $700 juicer, and then you'd pay $8 for each of the juice packs, almost like a razor-razorblade model. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Now, somebody, I think in your office, actually did try squeezing these bags with their bare hands. Was that you? OLIVIA ZALESKI: Yeah, that was me and my colleague Ellen Huet, who I also wrote the article with. LYNN NEARY, HOST: What made you think to do that? OLIVIA ZALESKI: Well, we had been tipped off by one of Juicero's investors. What he signed up for was very different from what was delivered. And he was surprised to discover that you could just simply squeeze the bag with your bare hands and that no hardware was necessary at all. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So all this seems a little bit ridiculous. But you write that venture capital has pumped $120 million into this startup and that it was among the top-funded hardware startups in 2016. Why would this device be so attractive to investors in the first place? OLIVIA ZALESKI: Well, I think Juicero was riding a lot of tailwinds - health and wellness was a really hot topic at the time that it was raising, the juice trend was huge - and then also the concept of connected devices, the idea that you could have something in your home that's not only valuable to the consumer but is also valuable to the company itself because it collects data about your habits. LYNN NEARY, HOST: A juicer that collects data on you. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Yes, believe it or not. OLIVIA ZALESKI: So the Juicero device is Wi-Fi connected, meaning that it knows when you press a pack. And it collects all sorts of information about which pack that you use. And I think that was attractive to investors who thought that there would be further iterations of this machine where it could collect even more information about its users. LYNN NEARY, HOST: So is there a cautionary tale here about Silicon Valley? Or is this just the gamble that anything could be the next iPhone and you have to take that gamble to find it? OLIVIA ZALESKI: It's a combination of both, really. What we're seeing is a huge backlash here on social media. I think people feel anger about the idea of creating a product that solves a First World problem. But I also think we need to put into perspective that there are hiccups along the way when we are creating new things. Not everyone's always going to get it right. And I'm not saying we give them a free pass here. But I do think the intentions of this company were to actually create something that people really needed. Were they tone deaf about doing it? Yes. LYNN NEARY, HOST: That's a Olivia Zaleski. She's a reporter at Bloomberg. LYNN NEARY, HOST: Thanks so much for joining us, Olivia. OLIVIA ZALESKI: Thanks for having me.

The company Juicero sells bagged juice and expensive high-tech presses, but customers realized they could squeeze the juice by hand. Lynn Neary talks with Bloomberg's Olivia Zaleski about the company.

Das Unternehmen Juicero verkauft Saft in Beuteln und teure Hightech-Pressen, aber die Kunden haben erkannt, dass sie den Saft auch von Hand pressen können. Lynn Neary spricht mit Olivia Zaleski von Bloomberg über das Unternehmen.

Juicero公司销售袋装果汁和昂贵的高科技榨汁机，但顾客觉得可以自己动手榨果汁。林恩·尼瑞与彭博社的奥利维亚·扎尔斯基就该公司进行了讨论。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Being a congressional Democrat from Alabama has been a lonely occupation. Representative Terri Sewell, from the district that includes Selma and parts of Birmingham and Montgomery, was the only Democrat in the state's congressional delegation until this week, when Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. Representative Sewell joins us from her district. Representative Sewell, thanks so much for being with us. TERRI SEWELL: Well, thank you so much for having me. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Doug Jones thanked you specifically for helping bring African-American voters to the polls. Do you want to take a victory lap and tell us how you did it? TERRI SEWELL: (Laughter) Well, listen. This was an amazing victory for Alabama. It was a victory, I think, for decency - common decency. And it shows that Alabama was willing to put principle over party. I was very excited that my district overperformed. And I was particularly excited about the African-American turnout. You know, I think that people understood that the stakes were high. This administration has had a negative effect on our community. It's reversing a lot of the Obama-era progress that we've made. And I'm just very pleased that people showed up and showed out. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Was the role of women especially important? TERRI SEWELL: Absolutely. You know, it was shown that Doug received 57 percent of all female votes. And that included 98 percent of the African-American women vote. The issues that matter most to my district affect the family and affect our children. And so I think that you really saw a major outpouring of women, especially African-American women, in this election. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: On the other hand, as there always is with those journalists, Roy Moore was an especially polarizing figure, even among Republicans. Do you draw any significance from what you were able to accomplish in this election with what you think Democrats ought to be doing for 2018? TERRI SEWELL: I do believe that this is a watershed election for Democrats and that lessons can be learned about coalition building - that even in ruby-red states like Alabama - that Democrats can perform, you know, if we really get out and motivate our traditional base but also partner with and coalition-build with moderate Republicans. I think that the lesson that was learned in this election was that a candidate does matter - who's the candidate matters. But the message matters, as well. The message that Doug talked about was the same, whether he was in an African-American church, a synagogue or a chamber of commerce. And that was a message of unity. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Does the national Democratic Party sometimes take the votes of African-Americans for granted? TERRI SEWELL: I do believe that. I also know that generally, you know, oftentimes, our base feels that they are neglected. But I do believe that we can turn that around by directly speaking to our base when it comes to policies that affect the family. So talking about health care and the fact that this administration wants to repeal without having a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, speaking about the ability to have equal funding - public funding for education so that all of our children get to reach their God-given potential. TERRI SEWELL: Those issues, as well as getting us prepared for the future of work, which is going to leave a large swath of rural America behind. I think, you know, talking in terms of workforce development and training opportunities for the future of work was something that Doug spoke very often about. And, you know, now comes the hard part, holding him accountable, as well as all elected officials accountable, to really deliver on those promises. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Terri Sewell, representative from Alabama's 7th Congressional District, thanks so much for being with us. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Thank you.

Selma's congressional district was key to the Democratic win in the special Senate election. Scott Simon talks with Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell talks about what Doug Jones' win means for Alabama.

Der Kongressbezirk von Selma war der Schlüssel zum Sieg der Demokraten bei den Sonderwahlen zum Senat. Scott Simon spricht mit dem demokratischen Abgeordneten. Terri Sewell spricht darüber, was Doug Jones Sieg für Alabama bedeutet.

塞尔玛的国会选区是民主党在参议院特别选举中获胜的关键。斯科特·西蒙与民主党众议员特里·休厄尔谈论道格琼斯的胜利对阿拉巴马州意味着什么。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Congressional Republicans have rolled out their plan to remake the nation's tax code. On Monday, they begin the markup of the bill. President Trump says he wants to sign the legislation by Christmas, which is just a little more than seven weeks away. And that's quick work for a Congress that's not known for that. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Jim Tankersley is the economics and tax reporter for The New York Times. He joins us from the Washington, D.C., bureau of the Times. Mr. Tankersley, thanks so much for being with us. JIM TANKERSLEY: Thank you so much for having me. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Let's try and understand this item by item, if we can. What portion of the tax cut goes to corporations? JIM TANKERSLEY: About two thirds. So let's back up for a second. The net tax cut here is about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And corporations get two thirds of that, corporations and business. Individuals get one third of that. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: And what about the argument that this corporate tax cut will benefit middle-class families in terms of higher wages and creating more jobs? JIM TANKERSLEY: That's going to be, I think, the central fight of this bill, the question of will big tax cuts - and it's a very big tax cut for corporations - turn into higher wages for middle-class families? The argument on the Republican side of that is that if you give companies more money and higher profits, they will invest it. They'll invest it in their workers, and their workers will see wage gains. The argument against that is that, no, corporations will pass most of that money on to their shareholders in terms of dividends, or they'll just pocket the money - sit on the profits. And that, I think, will be one of the big debate points as we move forward here. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: What are the changes proposed to the tax code you see that could most affect individuals and families? JIM TANKERSLEY: Well, there's a lot. It's a big, sweeping change. This is not a simple tax cut like we saw in the previous decade. So on the one hand, it collapses the number of brackets on the income tax side. And so most people would see lower tax rates on their income. Exception there is millionaires. But most everyone would see lower tax rates. JIM TANKERSLEY: On the other hand, it changes a lot of tax deductions - gets rid of some popular deductions like capping the state and local tax deduction and restricting it to property taxes not income taxes anymore. It gets rid of the medical expense deduction for high out-of-pocket medical costs. And perhaps most importantly for a lot of families, it changes the way in which you can deduct your kids, yourself. And so a lot of families - it replaces that with a child tax credit. And for a lot of families in the middle class, that could end up with a tax hike, several million families per our calculations. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: A lot of that sounds potentially quite unpopular. JIM TANKERSLEY: Well, it's always unpopular to go after deductions. This is the thing about the tax code. Everyone wants it to be more efficient and simpler, but you don't want to lose the things that benefit you personally. The argument Republicans are going to make to try to counter that is that it's much simpler - that 90 percent of families now will be able to file their taxes on a postcard because it doubles the standard deduction and they're not going to take itemized deductions anymore. It's going to be easy and hopefully - and for the bulk of American families, I should say, a tax cut. The argument on the Democratic side is going to be, yes, these are very popular things. There's all sorts of stuff getting rid of that people really like. Student loan interest deductions, for example, also are gone here. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Mr. Tankersley, with all of the getting rid of so many proposed deductions which have been popular for decades, how likely is this legislation to pass as it's been proposed? Or is this just a negotiating point to start with? JIM TANKERSLEY: I think it's very unlikely that this particular package exactly as it's proposed will pass. We know it's going to change to some degree. But will it change dramatically where a lot of the popular deductions end up staying? Will it change and scale back the rate cuts because Republicans, particularly in the Senate, are worried about adding $1.5 trillion to deficits? We don't know. This is a first discussion point and that there will be a lot of negotiations between Republicans with each other and with business lobbyists in particular over the next few weeks as they try to speed this through Congress. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Jim Tankersley of The New York Times, thanks so much for being with us. JIM TANKERSLEY: Thank you.

House Republicans rolled out their plan for overhauling the tax code. President Trump says he wants to sign the legislation by Christmas. Scott Simon talks with Jim Tankersley of The New York Times.

Die Republikaner des Repräsentantenhauses haben ihren Plan zur Überarbeitung der Steuergesetzgebung vorgelegt. Präsident Trump will das Gesetz bis Weihnachten unterzeichnen. Scott Simon spricht mit Jim Tankersley von der New York Times.

众议院共和党人推出了他们改革税法的计划。特朗普总统表示，他希望在圣诞节前签署该法案。斯科特·西蒙与《纽约时报》的吉姆·坦克斯利进行了探讨。

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: A prominent moderate Republican announced this week that he won't run for re-election. Congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania has often criticized President Trump and his policies, including his proposals on repealing the Affordable Care Act and tax reform. Mr. Dent told The Washington Post accomplishing the most basic fundamental tasks of governance is becoming far too difficult. Congressman Dent joins us now from his home in Pennsylvania. Mr. Dent, thanks so much for being with us. CHARLIE DENT: Hey. Thank you for having me on the program and great to be with you. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Well, sir, why do you find it more difficult to govern? CHARLIE DENT: Well, in recent years, particularly since the government shutdown in 2013, you know, I recognize that this - the basic tasks of governance are exceedingly and excruciatingly difficult. It shouldn't be so difficult to keep the government operating or preventing us from defaulting on our obligations. But sadly, that has become the case. CHARLIE DENT: There's a increased polarization. There are groups out there that profit off of this type of instability and uncertainty and chaos. And they put a lot of pressure on members of Congress. I would tell you there are members in - both political parties right now have some very serious challenges. They're being pushed into some bad directions. And we need to have a stronger voice from the center of the political spectrum. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Well, this week, of course, President Trump - unexpectedly, apparently - reached a deal with congressional Democrats to raise the debt limit and fund hurricane relief. A lot of members of your party are reportedly aghast. How do you feel? CHARLIE DENT: Actually, I believe the agreement that the president reached was fair. Now, and the very members who are complaining about the deal that the president reached on the debt ceiling were upset that the debt ceiling was only to be extended for three months, rather than 18 months. But truth be told, those same members wouldn't have voted for the debt ceiling, either three months or 18 months, thereby empowering Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who will be helping put up the votes for the debt ceiling. CHARLIE DENT: So the president, I think, recognized that leverage and negotiated with them. I would have preferred a longer debt ceiling as well, closer to 18 months. But I do recognize the reality of the situation. We're providing relief to the hurricane victims from Harvey. And we're keeping the government running for three months. And we have a three-month debt ceiling. The agreement was reasonable. And again, those very same members who are complaining about it would have never voted for a better deal anyway. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I have to ask. You're from a swing district. I gather you spoke with Speaker Ryan before news of your declining to run for re-election got out. Did the speaker try and change your mind? CHARLIE DENT: Well, I did speak with both Speaker Ryan and Steve Stivers. He's chair of the Congressional Campaign Committee. And they were both, I believe, fair to say, disappointed in what - would certainly prefer that I run for re-election. There's no question about that. But they understand that, you know, these decisions are not just about politics, they're personal. And they respect that, but they clearly would prefer that I run for re-election. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: You would have had a tough primary though, right? There's been rallies against you and... CHARLIE DENT: Oh, no. There was a rally last week, but it was a - that was a buffoon bus. And it was a - it was a freak show, to be honest with you. I mean, it really was bizarre. I mean, it was a bunch of people from out of town in a bus, you know, yelling and screaming. I mean, it really was not much of anything, but... SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I just want to interject. They may not share that characterization, but go ahead please, sir. CHARLIE DENT: Yeah, I'm sure they don't, but it's accurate (laughter). But I really had no serious challenge from the left or the right. My re-election prospects looked quite good, actually. Most of my colleagues have multiple opponents. You know, I had just one who announced in the right, and I had one who announced from the left, but neither of whom are particularly viable. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Why leave when, arguably, your voice - it's more important than ever that you be heard? CHARLIE DENT: Well, I have discussed with my family for - since 2013 about leaving Congress at some point. I never expected to serve more than five or six terms in the House, voters permitting. And I'm in my seventh term. I've been a committee chair. I'm a subcommittee chair on appropriations, a cardinal. I like that. CHARLIE DENT: But at the same time, I want to leave at the top of my game. And I feel that I can provide a voice for the sensible center, not just inside Congress, but from the outside as well. And so I'm really looking forward to the next phase of my life. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: I have to ask you in the 30 seconds we have left, are moderate Republicans a dwindling breed? CHARLIE DENT: Well, no. I mean, there are a lot of center-right Republicans, not enough, as far as I'm concerned, in Congress. But this is where the country is. I really believe this country does like us working from the center out. I truly believe that. And by the way, I just wanted to thank all the voters who supported me all these years. And it's just been a great - it's been the - a responsibility and honor of a lifetime to serve in Congress. And I've just thoroughly enjoyed it. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Congressman Dent of Pennsylvania, thanks so much for being with us. CHARLIE DENT: Thank you.

Republican Rep. Charlie Dent has announced he will not run for re-election in 2018. NPR's Scott Simon speaks with him about that decision.

Der republikanische Abgeordnete Charlie Dent hat angekündigt, dass er 2018 nicht zur Wiederwahl antreten wird. Scott Simon von NPR spricht mit ihm über diese Entscheidung.

共和党众议员查理·登特宣布他不会参加2018年的连任竞选。NPR的斯科特·西蒙与他谈论了这个决定。