Author: lthistle@whyy.org

  • Aid worker talks about the rescue efforts underway in Venezuela

    Transcript:

    STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

    Sebastian Mocarquer has been listening with us. He has deployed to Venezuela as head of coordination with the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination team, and he joins us from La Guaira, which was at the epicenter of the dual earthquakes. Welcome to the program.

    SEBASTIAN MOCARQUER: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

    INSKEEP: What do you think about when you hear, as we just did, that desperate listening for life and the rubble?

    MOCARQUER: First of all, I think I share the frustration of having to be at work sites and spend many hours searching and eventually not being able to rescue more people. And also I feel for the family that we just heard looking for their loved ones, even if it’s only the body recovery they’re facing at this point.

    INSKEEP: How do you look at your job now this many days in?

    MOCARQUER: Well, we are still hopeful and fully committed to the active rescue phase. Right now, we have 46 international search and rescue teams working here in La Guaira from 26 countries. And we are fully committed right now to work in this sector. We have identified 125 work sites, and we actually have completed so far 16 live rescues – are in the process right now of – in the process of searching and rescuing. Hopefully, we can obtain more live rescues as hours and days go by, although that makes it more slimmer.

    INSKEEP: You just told me 16 live rescues, meaning at least 16 occasions where you found someone alive in the rubble. Can you tell me one of those stories you’ve learned over the last couple of days?

    MOCARQUER: Yeah. Well, actually, for example, we have a live rescue – when we say live rescue, someone that we have confirmed to be alive within a collapse and there’s a search and rescue team that has either have contact with the person through direct voice or an listening device, like an acoustic sensor.

    INSKEEP: Right.

    MOCARQUER: And from that point on, they have been working for more than 24 hours since they first had contact. And this means that they have to breach several layers of concrete slabs. And you face the risk not only for the building, but for the neighboring buildings to collapse over their work site where the rescues are working. And this has been going on for hours as we progress and what is currently the last live rescue we have so far.

    INSKEEP: Do I understand you to mean that when you say 16 live rescues, there are some of them where you are pretty sure you know someone is alive in the rubble and you’re not there yet – people are still working around the clock to try to get to these individuals?

    MOCARQUER: When I say live rescues, it’s 16 people that we have extracted alive from the rubble…

    INSKEEP: Got it.

    MOCARQUER: …Since the international teams got here.

    INSKEEP: Got it. Got it. Do you feel there may still be more to find?

    MOCARQUER: Well, we certainly hope so. We are working on one live extrication right now, and we certainly will commit for the next coming days to continue to search the live rescues until the Venezuelan government determines that there is no more feasibility for live rescues.

    INSKEEP: Can you give me a picture of the architecture and the landscape of that coastal province so that I understand why it was so vulnerable?

    MOCARQUER: Sure. This is La Guaira, where we are concentrating all of the international search and rescue efforts. It’s a narrow and long piece of land between the hills and the seacoast, extending from the Maiquetia Airport, which is the International Caracas Airport, going east. And it’s a coastal area where there’s a lot of vacation homes and apartment buildings. And this was on actually a holiday, so many of those apartment buildings were occupied at the time that the earthquake hit.

    INSKEEP: So we’re talking about recreational apartments, people’s second apartments, vacation homes, that sort of thing?

    MOCARQUER: Yes. To some extent, yes. Some hotels and mixed construction. Yes.

    INSKEEP: And a lot of it just came down?

    MOCARQUER: It did. It came down. Sometime – some of them pancake-collapsed, some of them overturned and some of them – there’s several blocks of buildings that collapsed, and that makes it very challenge because it poses a significant risk for rescue workers.

    INSKEEP: Sebastian Mocarquer of the United Nations. Thanks for the update and good luck on your future work.

    MOCARQUER: Thank you very much. Good morning.

  • Texas will require students to read Bible passages

    Transcript:

    LEILA FADEL, HOST:

    Texas Board of Education is making passages from the Bible required reading for students from first grade through high school. Social studies will also be narrowed from a global perspective to the U.S. and Texas. Bill Zeeble with member station KERA reports.

    BILL ZEEBLE, BYLINE: The board’s decisions been brewing for a few years, and the majority says Texas students should know Christianity’s role in the creation of the nation and the state of Texas. The list of required readings calls for both standard literature by writers from Shakespeare to Langston Hughes and Bible passages like Psalm 23 or Jonah and the whale. Last Friday, the Republican majority board delivered its decision in a 9-5 party line vote. Here’s board member Brandon Hall.

    BRANDON HALL: America and Texas have been a Christian nation and a Christian state forever. Of course, there are other faiths that are represented, but they’ve had a minimal impact.

    ZEEBLE: Hundreds of conservatives spoke at the board meeting in support. Hundreds of others, including Jews and Muslims, oppose the plan. So did Kimmy Fink (ph), a Catholic mom and former teacher from the Austin area.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    KIMMY FINK: We hold fast to this nation’s guarantee that it is our right to practice our faith as we so choose, and we absolutely object to the government requiring Bible readings in public schools.

    ZEEBLE: The board’s social studies rewrite injects more Bible stories while reasserting the evils of communism and citing Islam – the world’s second largest religion – as dangerously violent and founded by Prophet Muhammed, who, quote, “led brutal military campaigns.” Critics said this rewrite lacked balance and accuracy. The board plans to finish the social studies curriculum rewrite in September, having completed K-8 so far. The Bible passage reading list is ready and starts in the 2030 school year. For NPR News, I’m Bill Zeeble in Dallas.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

  • Study finds Australia’s social media ban for children has barely affected access

    Transcript:

    STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

    Australia is promising harsher penalties for tech companies that breach its social media ban for children. The tweaks to the policy come now that it’s several months old. The first version of the policy seems not to have stopped kids from getting on Facebook or TikTok or other restricted platforms. Kristina Kukolja reports.

    KRISTINA KUKOLJA, BYLINE: Six months into the ban, Australia’s prime minister says too many children are still on social media. Anthony Albanese told Parliament companies that aren’t complying with age restrictions must be held accountable.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    PRIME MINISTER ANTHONY ALBANESE: We’re working on that as a priority because this is something that other generations didn’t have to deal with.

    KUKOLJA: He’s announced new legislation to double penalties for breaches to the equivalent of nearly $70 million and give stronger information-gathering powers to the online safety regulator. It comes as research by the University of Newcastle found most underage children were still online three months after restrictions were introduced.

    COURTNEY BARNES: Over 85% of adolescents under 16 years, so those directly impacted by the age restrictions, were actually still accessing at least one of those restricted platforms each week.

    KUKOLJA: That’s public health researcher Courtney Barnes, who led the study published in the British Medical Journal. It found, quote, “limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention” of restrictions by children.

    BARNES: They were really just using fake accounts predominantly, or private browsers like incognito mode. So definitely those early findings suggest that the age restrictions aren’t working as they were intended.

    KUKOLJA: The data supports the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s findings that 70% of parents surveyed in March had underage children with some access to banned sites. The regulator put several companies on notice over compliance, even as it said millions of accounts had been removed, deactivated or restricted. John Pane is from the digital rights group Electronic Frontiers Australia.

    JOHN PANE: It is a significant failure. The Australian government went at this by using the bluntest tool in the toolbox to smash the lowest of hanging fruit.

    KUKOLJA: He says the government should take stronger action against social media companies.

    PANE: It needs to prevent that behavioral modification that’s driven by algorithms for engagement. Until we address that, things aren’t going to change.

    KUKOLJA: Courtney Barnes agrees it’s an area that needs to be tackled but says it’s too early to say the ban has failed.

    BARNES: It’s potentially not for the adolescents now that have been removed from social media where the real effects will occur. It might be for those younger age groups. Then we’ve probably got to wait 10 years to really know the true impact of the policy like this.

    KUKOLJA: The Australian government says it’s also considering imposing a digital duty of care to force social media companies to prevent online harm.

    For NPR News, I’m Kristina Kukolja in Melbourne.

  • Trump notches wins for his immigration agenda as SCOTUS weighs birthright citizenship

    Transcript:

    STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

    The Trump Administration says Haitians and Syrians who have been in the United States under temporary protected status now have two choices – they can apply for a new legal status…

    LEILA FADEL, HOST:

    Or they can leave the country. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said this on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status, or we’ll help you get back to your country. We’ll actually give you a plane ticket plus roughly $2,100 to help you reestablish when you get there. But temporary protective status, according to the courts and in its name itself, is not permanent status.

    FADEL: A Supreme Court ruling last week upended more than a decade of protections for Haitians and Syrians with TPS, and it put protections for hundreds of thousands of other immigrants in question. The ruling was a win for Trump legally, but is it a win politically?

    INSKEEP: Our senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson has been looking into that. Mara, good morning.

    MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Good morning.

    INSKEEP: Before we get to the politics, let’s start with the facts. What does happen here with 330,000 Haitians and Syrians?

    LIASSON: Markwayne Mullin did not directly answer whether the administration has plans for mass deportations of these immigrants, and CNN’s Jake Tapper pushed Mullin on whether Haiti and Syria were safe enough for people to return. Remember, the whole point of TPS, temporary protected status, is to give protections to people whose countries – home countries are too unsafe, either from war or natural disaster or other factors. And Mullin emphasized, as you heard him say, that this program was meant to be temporary. He told Tapper, quote, “maybe they can go back there and restore their country.”

    INSKEEP: And the Supreme Court ruled that the administration has discretion to make this decision in the way that they want. Also the court ruled on asylum cases as well, right?

    LIASSON: That’s right. The court also reaffirmed the Trump administration’s ability to restrict who can apply for asylum in the United States. The Constitution does give the executive branch control over immigration, and that’s a power that Donald Trump has been using very aggressively. But both of these cases uphold the ways that Trump is trying to fundamentally reshape not just illegal immigration, but also the legal immigration system.

    INSKEEP: But the question that’s on your mind is a little different. So they’re winning in court. They’re getting to do what they want. Your question is whether that is politically good for the administration.

    LIASSON: Right. And that remains to be seen. You know, originally, Trump’s immigration agenda was very popular because it focused on things people really cared about – securing the border, deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But as time went on, it morphed into something different, like going after green card holders, people who’d been in the United States working without a criminal record for decades.

    Some of these people were very integrated into the economies of their communities, like Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. Remember, during the 2024 campaign, Trump expressed his long-held animus towards Haitians when he falsely accused them of eating people’s pet dogs and cats. So then his immigration policy became much less popular even among Republicans.

    What we have to watch for now is how the end of TPS plays politically, and a lot of that is going to depend on how fast the administration moves to deport these immigrants, legal immigrants. The bottom line is that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming country for immigrants, even legal immigrants. The administration is also talking about denaturalization, taking away citizenship. And that historically has been a very rarely used tool.

    INSKEEP: NPR’s Mara Liasson. Thanks for the insights.

    LIASSON: You’re welcome.

  • What’s next for temporary protected status holders after SCOTUS ruling?

    Transcript:

    LEILA FADEL, HOST:

    For more on the Supreme Court’s ruling about temporary protected status, we’re joined by Megan Hauptman. She’s one of the lawyers who litigated the TPS case with the International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of about 6,000 Syrian refugees. And she’s in studio with me now. Good morning, and thanks for being here.

    MEGAN HAUPTMAN: Thanks so much for having me.

    FADEL: So I want to start with what this decision has meant for your about 6,000 clients.

    HAUPTMAN: Yeah. So our clients are Syrian TPS holders who’ve lived here lawfully, often for more than a decade. They’re your neighbors, community members, people who’ve had children here, pursued careers, pursued education. They’ve really built their lives in the United States, under the understanding that Syria was not safe for them to return to. And all of a sudden, they are facing the possible imminent loss of their status overnight, going from being lawfully present with work authorization to essentially being rendered undocumented, and having to make really impossible decisions about whether to stay in a country that will afford them no protection or to return to a country that isn’t safe to return them. And all of that implicates family separation, the loss of jobs and the ability to care for others. And it has ripple effects outside of just TPS holders, but also in the communities that they’re an integral part of.

    FADEL: I want to ask you about that because you talk about them having jobs, being integrated in their communities. And Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin talked about the administration’s position on CNN’s “State Of The Union” on Sunday, and this is what he had to say.

    (SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “STATE OF THE UNION”)

    MARKWAYNE MULLIN: What we want – and the president has made this very clear – those that are coming to this country legally, they need to be able to contribute to the United States, not be a burden on the taxpayers.

    FADEL: A burden on the taxpayers. I mean, TPS was set up to let people live and work in the U.S. if they couldn’t return safely to their home countries. Does what he’s saying here match reality?

    HAUPTMAN: No, because what the administration is doing is making it impossible for these people to continue to have work permits, to lawfully work in this country. It’s actually making them – it’s creating a new burden by stripping people of status, by stripping them of work authorization. And TPS holders, both Syrians and from many other nationalities, are often working in industries that are understaffed, that are actively looking to fill roles.

    There’s a lot of TPS holders who work in health care, elder care. There’s also TPS holders working in the farmworker industries, meatpacking, industries that are already feeling the economic crunch as a result of the administration’s immigration policies. And this decision does nothing to alleviate that stress. And certainly, it doesn’t make it easier for people to continue to work if they no longer have permission to.

    FADEL: Now, this case was about TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals specifically. But what does the high court’s decision say to you about the future of immigration more broadly in the U.S.?

    HAUPTMAN: Yeah. So beyond Syrian and Haitian TPS holders, this decision green lights the administration’s efforts to strip status from potentially up to 1.3 million TPS holders across different nationalities. And what the court said here is that even though there’s a law, there’s a TPS law that sets out a process and criteria for making TPS decisions, that even if the administration doesn’t follow that law, even if they blatantly violate it, there’s no accountability with the federal courts for those violations. And so it really makes it easier for the administration to go ahead and terminate TPS for really any reason that they want, with the knowledge that there won’t be accountability.

    FADEL: Megan Hauptman is one of the lawyers who argued the TPS case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Syrian refugees. Thank you so much for your time and your insights.

    HAUPTMAN: Thank you so much.

    (SOUNDBITE OF THE BLACK NOODLE PROJECT’S “SQUARE-CIRCLE”)

  • Trump’s name is off Kennedy Center, but he’s still center stage as Maher wins Twain prize

    Trump’s name is off Kennedy Center, but he’s still center stage as Maher wins Twain prize

    Comedian Bill Maher received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Sunday night at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, but there was another person who loomed large over the two-hour event.

    He didn’t show up and — until recently — his name adorned the building: President Donald J. Trump.

    A little more than two weeks ago, Trump’s name was removed from the arts center’s marble facade because of a judge’s order. A tarp still covers that area, blocking the removal of Trump’s name from public view. The tarp has even become a bit of a tourist attraction; some people came by last night before the festivities to take photos.

    During the ceremony, Woody Harrelson, a close friend of Maher’s, and a business partner in a cannabis dispensary in Los Angeles, jokingly referenced the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” then paused.

    “Oh right, we fixed that,” Harrelson said, “Not that you’d be able to notice.”

    The jokes aimed at the president continued.

    During Maher’s acceptance speech, fellow comedian Matt Friend came on stage and did a long Trump impression in which he sparred with Maher, repeated some of Trump’s most disparaging remarks about him and concluded that the award should really be his.

    “Why are we giving this low-ratings, lightweight jerk the Mark Twain award?” Friend asked in the voice of Trump.

    During the bit, Maher referenced his dinner with Trump at the White House last year, where he had described the president as “gracious and measured.”

    “Why can’t you always be that guy?” said Maher.

    “Boring, Bill,” Friend responded in character. “Who would want to see that?”

    Maher joined 26 earlier recipients of the Mark Twain Prize, which is essentially a lifetime achievement award for American comedy. Past winners include Dave Chapelle, Carol Burnett, Eddie Murphy and Jon Stewart.

    Maher noted that his win was especially sweet. He has previously been nominated for a slew of Emmy awards for his current show and has never won.

    The ceremony will run on Netflix July 21.

    Some of those who roasted him last night, including Jay Leno and Louis C.K., said what makes Maher special in this politically fraught era is that he skewers liberals and conservatives and invites both on his show, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Just this month, Maher hosted Vice President Vance and former Vice President Mike Pence.

    In a red carpet chat, Maher told NPR he hoped the award and his approach to comedy would encourage people to step outside their ideological and algorithmic bubbles.

    “It’s not just that people live in bubbles, it’s that they want to,” said Maher. “What I think is unique about our show is that we are not afraid to say to people who might be upset about it: “No, what you’re doing is crazy, too.”

    At the end of his acceptance speech, Maher referenced famous names who had inspired him.

    He cited Toto.

    The audience responded with silence and puzzlement.

    Maher explained he was talking not about the soft rock group. Instead, he was referring to Dorothy’s dog in the Wizard of Oz.

    “That’s because Toto pulls back the curtain and exposes who is phony,” Maher said.

    Transcript:

    STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

    Bill Maher has received this year’s Mark Twain prize for American Humor. It’s pretty much a lifetime achievement award for comedians, and he accepted last night at the Kennedy Center. The ceremony went ahead without President Trump, the guy whose name used to be on the building. NPR’s Frank Langfitt was at the ceremony last night and is in Studio 31 with us this morning. Frank, good morning.

    FRANK LANGFITT, BYLINE: Hey. Good morning, Steve.

    INSKEEP: OK. So Bill Maher has made fun of Trump, had a pretty sharp interview with JD Vance the other day, but he also had dinner with Trump at the White House last year. So how did he fit into this story?

    LANGFITT: So, really, from even before it started, his name came up. You know, Trump is the chairman of the Kennedy Center and it was announced that Maher was going to get this award. At first the White House denied it, later confirmed it. So I was talking to Maher with other reporters on the red carpet and he joked that he wasn’t even sure how the ceremony might even – might turn out.

    BILL MAHER: News about the event has changed many times. You know, it’s happening. It’s not happening. The name of the building changed. I’m not going to believe it till it’s over. Still time for something to go wrong.

    INSKEEP: OK. So it did go ahead, but he’s right that the name of the building has changed since he received the award. The Trump administration had to take his name off the building. Any references to that?

    LANGFITT: Yeah. It was. And the other thing is, if you remember, about two weeks ago, when they were taking the letters off, they actually put a tarp up first…

    INSKEEP: Yeah.

    LANGFITT: …So people – so people couldn’t actually see what was going on. That tarp – I was there that night. The tarp also, oddly, is still there as well. And so the Kennedy Center says that this is just in order to maintain the building’s marble facade. But Woody Harrelson was there last night, close friend of Maher’s. He was up on stage and he joked about it, and he said, ironically, sort of, we’re at the Trump Kennedy Center. Oh, right, we fixed that. And then he said, not that you’d be able to notice.

    INSKEEP: (Laughter).

    LANGFITT: And I got to say, Steve, if that tarp was meant to deflect attention from the removal of Trump’s name, it’s not really working. Even last night, there were people driving by, walking up, taking pictures of it. It’s become sort of this minor tourist attraction.

    INSKEEP: Just to be clear, you told us Woody Harrelson’s joke. You did not play a sound of his joke.

    LANGFITT: I did not. Netflix is not allowing people to record audio or video of this event. And it’s producing the event and it’s going to be releasing clips a little bit later, and then the special will air later in July.

    INSKEEP: Which I think is deserved. It’s a big deal, the Mark Twain award.

    LANGFITT: It is.

    INSKEEP: Some of the biggest comedians in history – in American history – in recent years have gotten this award. Was there a message in choosing Maher right now?

    LANGFITT: I think it was really clear from the red carpet, but then also on stage – and you heard this from some of the speakers – and the idea is that Maher makes fun of liberals, makes fun of conservatives. He also invites both on his HBO show, you know, “Real Time With Bill Maher.” And it’s just like we were mentioning – Vice President JD Vance was on last week, earlier this month, former VP Mike Pence.

    INSKEEP: Yeah.

    LANGFITT: So I’m talking – I ask Maher what do you hope people would take away from him getting this prize? And this is how he put it.

    MAHER: Hopefully, people will take that to mean we’ve had enough of automatically living in our bubble. It’s not just that people live in bubbles. It’s that they want to. What’s our – I think, unique about our show is that we are not afraid to say to people who might be upset about it, no, what you’re doing is crazy, too.

    INSKEEP: When he gave his speech, did he give any insights into his comedy or his inspirations for it?

    LANGFITT: He did. You know, he mentioned he could cite a lot of people, obviously, somebody like George Carlin. But then he said what he patterned himself on was Toto. And then there was silence in the room. People were really confused. And he explained he was talking about from “The Wizard Of Oz.”

    INSKEEP: (Laughter) OK.

    LANGFITT: And he said, that’s because Toto pulls back the curtain and exposes who’s phony.

    INSKEEP: I was thinking of the ’80s rock group.

    LANGFITT: That’s what I thought, too, Steve (laughter).

    INSKEEP: Frank, thanks so much.

    LANGFITT: Great to be here, man.

    INSKEEP: NPR’s Frank Langfitt.

    (SOUNDBITE OF THE RUGGED NUGGETS’ “WALKING IN THE RAIN”)

  • In Venezuela, silence has become a rescue tool

    Transcript:

    DON GONYEA, HOST:

    We start today’s program in the Venezuelan port of La Guaira on the Caribbean coast, which is now at the heart of one of the country’s worst natural disasters. The city bore the brunt of Wednesday’s brutal double earthquakes, which killed nearly 1,500 people across the capital and surrounding areas in northern Venezuela. Thousands are still unaccounted for. Rescue teams and volunteers continue to search through the rubble, but hopes of finding more survivors are now fading as time passes. NPR’s Eyder Peralta is there in La Guaira. Eyder, you’ve spent the day traveling along this destroyed coastline. What have you seen?

    EYDER PERALTA, BYLINE: I mean, it’s just total devastation, Don. I mean, last night, we were here late, until the sundown. And we were in front of a building, and there was just this mad rush to try and find people who were making noise from under rubble. And really, it was an ad hoc job. They were tying pieces of concrete onto cars and just trying to move them with cars. And then every once in a while, they would tell everybody to be quiet. The motorcycles would turn off their engines, and they would all go quiet. And the rescuers would scream, if you’re alive, please make some noise.

    The people inside had been screaming for days, but last night, all the rescuers kept hearing was just rustling sounds. They told them, if you’re alive, use two rocks and smash them together so we can hear them. The good news is one official told us that from the building that I’m standing in front of right now – which we were here last night too – they did rescue one person this morning alive.

    GONYEA: We spoke to you 24 hours ago in La Guaira, and I’m struck. It was so noisy in the background when we were speaking. I could hear backhoes, motorcycles everywhere. It is so much quieter today.

    PERALTA: It is, and there’s a reason for that. Basically, they need to hear if anybody’s still alive. So what they’ve told – you’ll hear me kind of whisper here – what they’ve told the motorcycles is they have to turn off their engines when they’re going through any collapsed building. And so the motorcyclists turn off their engines. They walk through. And they tell you to be quiet and actually not even to move because the footsteps cause noises, and they’re just desperately trying to find out if anybody is still in those buildings. And so that’s why it’s so quiet today.

    GONYEA: So what’s the challenge now for rescue teams and, I guess, recovery teams in the areas that are the worst affected?

    PERALTA: There’s some parts that are totally OK, and then there are some parts where it’s just completely devastated. And it’s a massive disaster. There’s a lot of aid, but it’s just not enough. Today, we were in front of a 12-story building, and no one was there. No official rescuer was there. It was just the families of the people who lived in that building who were digging through the rubble, and it’s just with their hands.

    GONYEA: And what are people telling you both about the official response but also just the scale of the damage that they’re confronted with?

    PERALTA: I think they understand that this is so massive that their government can’t properly deal with it. You know, one interesting scene – we were at an apartment building today, and people were going into half-destroyed apartment buildings to try and rescue their things because they said that they don’t trust that the government will have their back, and so they’re going to need them. I spoke to one woman, Jaymarie Blanco (ph), who told me that she had lost her home in a 1999 landslide. She said she had built this apartment with so much love, and she was taking out her couch from her apartment, and she broke down. Let’s listen to a bit of what she said.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MOTORCYCLE DRIVING BY)

    JAYMARIE BLANCO: (Crying, speaking Spanish).

    PERALTA: And what she’s saying there is, “this is not easy.” She says, “there’s been so much suffering, so much suffering.”

    GONYEA: That’s NPR’s Eyder Peralta in La Guaira, Venezuela. Thank you, Eyder. Take care.

    PERALTA: Thank you, Don.

  • Can one bill make housing more affordable?

    Transcript:

    DON GONYEA, HOST:

    Congress has passed the biggest housing bill in decades. President Trump has said he won’t sign it unless Congress first passes an unrelated voter ID measure. But today, House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News he’s confident the president will sign the bill as early as tomorrow.

    (SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “SUNDAY MORING FUTURES”)

    MIKE JOHNSON: I’m going to send the bill over to him. It’s passed by both chambers. I’m sending it to him on Monday, and it will become law. And I certainly want him to take the biggest, boldest marker that he has and do that big Trump signature proudly on that legislation.

    GONYEA: If it does become law, what will it actually change? We called up Vincent Reina, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Housing Initiative at Penn, a housing policy research group. We started by talking about what’s in this bill.

    VINCENT REINA: What this bill does is it really brings together essentially 40 different proposals that have been out there for a while and lumps them all together. There’s a few kind of fairly significant changes. One is just thinking about how to make it easier to build housing and maybe reducing federal and local regulations that make it harder to build and by virtue of making it harder to build make it more costly to build.

    A good example of this is in the manufactured housing space. There’s a rule that manufactured housing has to be built on a chassis. So that’s a federal regulation that essentially doesn’t make much sense in modern times, especially as standards has increased around manufactured housing and what that actually means for their quality.

    Another example is a supply fund where they’re essentially trying to create incentives for state and local governments to make it easier to build. So what they said is, essentially, we’ll reward you with financial resources from the federal government if you show us that what you’ve done is made kind of proactive efforts to actually make it easier to build housing in your locality.

    GONYEA: If you’re a person who’s struggling to find a home you can afford in, say, California, it seems like that is a very different experience there than maybe doing so in Ohio or Mississippi. But I guess what I’m wondering is do they actually share common problems despite the differences in the markets?

    REINA: One of the realities is that we could all have a housing problem, but it takes on different forms, right? So in some markets, like in Philadelphia, there are actually a lot of challenges around housing quality and home repair needs. Whereas in another market, I could just be paying an exorbitant amount of money towards my rent. Maybe it’s a high-quality unit, but there’s no option for me to actually find a cheaper unit.

    So all to say is, I think, in some ways, what’s really interesting is when you look at the affordability and the quality challenges, you see the kind of housing challenges people facing take on slightly different forms across markets but still being quite significant. And the reality is, you know, we use a lot of measures like housing cost burdens. And they’re clearly really important measures, but they’re kind of one piece of the puzzle. For someone who’s low-income, even if they’re slightly below being housing cost burden, they still don’t have much income to spend on all other goods.

    GONYEA: What’s the next conversation about housing that lawmakers aren’t having yet?

    REINA: At the core of this, we have a housing affordability problem – right? – which is distinctly related to the housing supply problem. But when we think of solutions, we really have to center the affordability issues. As we’re kind of talking about bills that could make it easier to build, we actually need appropriations that come along and provide subsidies and supports for people to actually be able to afford housing, right? So building actually reduces price pressure, but when we see a wholesale loss of our affordable housing stock across kind of the ownership and the renter side, we need to think about building for the low- and moderate-income households, and that inherently involves some level of subsidy.

    And then beyond that, you need, really, government agencies that are actively thinking about program development and both have the capacity and ability – both kind of staff-wise and financially – to develop these programs and deliver them properly.

    GONYEA: Vincent Reina is a city and regional planning professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks for helping explain this to us.

    REINA: Thank you for covering this important topic, Don.

  • The World Cup spotlights Indigenous cultures

    Transcript:

    DON GONYEA, HOST:

    Some cities hosting World Cup games are making an effort to involve Indigenous nations in the events. Northwest Public Broadcasting’s Lauren Gallup has this story about what that’s looking like in the Pacific Northwest.

    LAUREN GALLUP, BYLINE: This month, as soccer fans swarm Seattle to watch World Cup games, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians hosted their own celebration to kick off the matches.

    (SOUNDBITE OF RHYTHMIC DRUMMING)

    UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: (Chanting in non-English language).

    GALLUP: On their reservation, a short drive from Seattle, the tribe hosted a Coastal Protocol for the public with other Indigenous nations. That’s a traditional cultural exchange of song, dance and often gift giving. Amy McFarland is directing World Cup events for the Puyallup Tribe.

    AMY MCFARLAND: That’s the opportunity. Really, the winning point is to share our culture, our language and our heritage with the world.

    GALLUP: The tribe is partnering with local organizers to be part of hosting the games. That means, in addition to culturally significant gatherings like the Coastal Protocol, they’re holding watch parties on their reservation. A video also plays before each of the games in Seattle that features the Muckleshoot, Suquamish and Puyallup tribes.

    MCFARLAND: It gives a real good snapshot of who the Pacific Northwest native is.

    LEO FLOR: It’s just really fitting, and it makes a ton of sense that at this – you know, in the world’s largest and most watched sporting event that really celebrates the coming together of nations, that we would intentionally include the sovereign Indigenous nations that are hosting it.

    GALLUP: Flor says the local organizing committee also helped build school soccer pitches for the Puyallup Tribe and the Lummi Nation to support young Indigenous soccer players. Meanwhile, up north in Vancouver, British Columbia, the city included three First Nations as host city supporters of the games there. Charlene Aleck is a member of the Tsleil Waututh Nation. She says Vancouver city leaders made sure that Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil Waututh would be partners with the city. The nations helped plan the events and are meeting with world leaders who have come to town for the games.

    CHARLENE ALECK: Having the inclusion of our chiefs and our women of high standing be participating at the same level as dignitaries, that – you know, it’s a good step.

    GALLUP: Aleck is in charge of the nation’s display at Vancouver’s festival for the games. It includes a traditional 30-foot-long canoe, a map of their homelands and demonstrations of wood carving and weaving. She says people from all over the world have come to the site, and some have spent hours wrapped in the smell of red cedar and absorbing the stories shared within.

    ALECK: We had a lady from Costa Rica, knowing our history of the atrocities that we endured, but to see our culture still vibrant and just so giving, she said, the feeling that I got when I stepped onto your site brought me to tears.

    GALLUP: Aleck says that woman was among many visitors who say they are grateful that the World Cup has given them an opportunity to learn more about the cultures of the people whose land the games are being played on. For NPR News, I’m Lauren Gallup on the Puyallup Reservation.

    (SOUNDBITE OF SEAN ANGUS WATSON’S “RUNNING”)

  • CINEPLEXITY: The military through Hollywood’s lens

    Transcript:

    DON GONYEA, HOST:

    With the U.S. trying to disentangle itself from the country’s latest military conflict, we wanted to take a look at how the military has been portrayed on the big screen. In the World War II era, movies often served as propaganda, like 1942’s “Flying Tigers” starring John Wayne.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “FLYING TIGERS”)

    JOHN WAYNE: (As Capt. Jim Gordon) Listen, Dale, this is your first time up. Don’t try to win this war all by yourself. Stick close…

    GONYEA: By the 1970s, a more jaundiced view of war came into focus in movies like “Apocalypse Now.”

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “APOCALYPSE NOW”)

    MARLON BRANDO: (As Colonel Kurtz) You’re an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

    GONYEA: Marlon Brando there. Military movies continue to evolve and reflect the times when they were made. So we wanted to see what people who know quite a lot about our armed forces make of the way America’s military is depicted on the big screen. To get into all this, we have two of NPR’s military experts, Quil Lawrence who covers veterans affairs and Tom Bowman, our Pentagon correspondent. Good to be with both you guys.

    TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Hey, Don.

    QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Hey. Thanks.

    GONYEA: So I feel like we can divide movies about the military into separate categories. For instance, there’s William Wyler’s classic, “The Best Years Of Our Lives,” from 1946.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES”)

    HAROLD RUSSELL: (As Homer Parrish) This is when I know I’m helpless. My hands are down there on the bed. I can’t put them on again without calling to somebody for help.

    GONYEA: That’s about World War II veterans trying to reacclimate to civilian life. It is a much different experience from Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan,” which puts you right in the thick of combat.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “SAVING PRIVATE RYAN”)

    TOM HANKS: (As Captain Miller) All right, three runners with suppressing fire. Mellish, you hook to the right. I’ll go up the middle. Who’s going left?

    GONYEA: Can we break down what each type offers? Tom, why don’t you go first?

    BOWMAN: Yeah, you know, I really loved “The Best Years Of Our Lives,” and I think it’s really pretty daring for that time. It shows psychological damage on these guys coming back from war.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES”)

    DANA ANDREWS: (As Fred Derry) Come on, the rest of you guys.

    VIRGINIA MAYO: (As Marie Derry) Fred.

    ANDREWS: (As Fred Derry) Come on, get out.

    MAYO: (As Marie Derry) Fred, wake up.

    ANDREWS: (As Fred Derry) Get out.

    MAYO: (As Marie Derry) Wake up.

    ANDREWS: (As Fred Derry) Get out (ph).

    BOWMAN: “Saving Private Ryan,” a classic movie, the depiction of the D-Day invasion – I remember seeing it when it came out in 1998.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “SAVING PRIVATE RYAN”)

    HANKS: (As Captain Miller, yelling) Clear the shingle.

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #1: (As character, yelling) Fire in the hole.

    TOM SIZEMORE: (As Sergeant Horvath, yelling) Fire in the hole.

    BOWMAN: At that time, I know I read some stories about how veterans of D-Day, some of them just walked out of the theater because it was so realistic. They just couldn’t take it.

    GONYEA: Quil, what type of film do you maybe get more out of – the combat film or the film about veterans coming home?

    LAWRENCE: Well, it’s a perfect dichotomy, really, because the war films can be a real grueling odyssey like “Saving Private Ryan,” or it can be something like “The Great Escape”…

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE GREAT ESCAPE”)

    STEVE MCQUEEN: (As Hilts “The Cooler King”) When I get through that wire, I’m not going to be peeking over fences making maps for you guys. By morning, I’m going to be so far away, you couldn’t hear it if they were shooting me with howitzers.

    LAWRENCE: …Where you’re just involved in this story, which can be humorous, and it’s kind of a – you know, war has always provided some of the greatest drama in human history in art. But it also – I say it’s a perfect dichotomy because it’s really how the U.S. government divides things too. They send you over to war, and that is where you have the glory and the fighting and the grueling, exciting combat. And then, if you want to deal with the consequences, that’s not our problem, says the Pentagon. That’s the VA. Send them over there. And so that’s really the difference in these two kinds of films, is one is the adventure of it. And we’ll talk about whether you can really have an anti-war film. But the veterans film is really when you’re paying the piper. These are the consequences, the human consequences of war that go on for decades.

    GONYEA: So for both of you, growing up, what were the types of war movies you saw? What were your takeaways as far as how they portrayed the military? Tom, you want to start?

    BOWMAN: Yeah, I remember seeing “The Longest Day” with my dad. I was pretty young, maybe 8 or 9 or something like that.

    GONYEA: So that’s about D-Day.

    BOWMAN: Correct, about D-Day.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE LONGEST DAY”)

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #2: (As character) Are you all right, boy?

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #3: (As character) Yes, sir.

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #2: (As character) Well, don’t you think you better go back there and get your rifle?

    BOWMAN: And I remember I was eating. He got me some lemon lozenges or lemon candy, I remember, at the theater in our hometown in Norwood, Massachusetts. And I just remember how sweeping it was. You know, it was a star-studded cast, as they said back then.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE LONGEST DAY”)

    WAYNE: (As Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort) Your assignment tonight is strategic. You can’t give the enemy a break. Send them to hell.

    GONYEA: Quil, what movies impacted you?

    LAWRENCE: Well, for war movies, I guess, when I was younger, I probably was interested in some of these more realistic and disturbing Vietnam movies like “Apocalypse Now,” “The Deer Hunter.”

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “THE DEER HUNTER”)

    MERYL STREEP: (As Linda) You sure you’re all right, huh?

    ROBERT DE NIRO: (As Michael) Yeah.

    STREEP: (As Linda) What about your wounds?

    DE NIRO: (As Michael) Just the usual complications, that’s all.

    LAWRENCE: Eventually when “Full Metal Jacket” and “Platoon” came out, I was certainly fascinated by those.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “PLATOON”)

    CHARLIE SHEEN: (As Chris) They say, if you’re going to get killed in the ‘Nam, it’s better to get it in the first few weeks. The logic being you don’t suffer that much.

    LAWRENCE: I would say, you know, a favorite, too, is “Stripes,” which…

    GONYEA: (Laughter) Classic.

    LAWRENCE: …Is a classic comedy, which was actually filmed on, you know, a U.S. Army base.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “STRIPES”)

    BILL MURRAY: (As John) There is one thing that we all have in common. We were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army.

    LAWRENCE: And the Army, at the time, this was a – hat tip to Ken Robbins (ph), a retired colonel I know, who said that – he told me they actually let Bill Murray come in and film this total farce because Army recruiting was so bad at that stage in the early ’80s, they figured it could only help to have a movie, any movie, about the Army.

    GONYEA: It’s funny, thinking about “Stripes,” it seems like no matter how farcical or cynical war films can be, some viewers can still find war attractive or exciting.

    LAWRENCE: Yeah. You know, contradictorily, you know, paradoxically, all accurate movies about war should be anti-war movies. But the fact is someone, probably a 16, 17-year-old boy in America, is going to be excited by the thrill of the combat and end up interested in joining because of this horrific violence that he’s seeing on screen.

    GONYEA: So can either of you recommend one, maybe two films that really got at something honest or true about the military experience?

    BOWMAN: I like the movie “Glory”…

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “GLORY”)

    MORGAN FREEMAN: (As Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins) If tomorrow, we have to meet the Judgment Day…

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTORS: (As characters) Yes, Sir.

    FREEMAN: (As Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins) …Oh, Heavenly Father, we want you to let our folks know that we died facing the enemy.

    BOWMAN: …Came out a number of years ago about the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, the Black unit that was commanded by a white officer, Robert Gould Shaw, played by of all people, Matthew Broderick.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “GLORY”)

    MATTHEW BRODERICK: (As Col. Robert Gould Shaw) It is my hope that the same courage, spirit and honor which has brought us together will one day restore this union.

    BOWMAN: It’s kind of a little-known episode in the Civil War, and I thought that was pretty well done and pretty accurate – also, “Black Hawk Down.”

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “BLACK HAWK DOWN”)

    ZELJKO IVANEK: (As Harrell) We got a Black Hawk down. We got a Black Hawk down.

    BOWMAN: I knew one of the Delta Force soldiers who was there at the time. It’s pretty realistic. It’s almost claustrophobic. There are these narrow streets. There are barricades, gunfire and smoke. They’re shooting RPGs.

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “BLACK HAWK DOWN”)

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #4: (As character, yelling) Take cover.

    (SOUNDBITE OF EXPLOSIONS)

    BOWMAN: The confusion as these guys try to reach their friends who are trapped – and also, it shows you the heroism but also shows you just what a mess this whole military mission was.

    GONYEA: Quil, what have you got?

    LAWRENCE: Yeah, I would say, if you want to know what counterinsurgency is about, this movie isn’t about Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s about the French counterinsurgency in Algeria. “The Battle Of Algiers” – it’s a classic.

    (SOUNDBITE OF BRUNO NICOLAI AND ENNIO MORRICONE’S “ALGIERS NOVEMBER 1, 1954”)

    LAWRENCE: I think, though, so many of these films end up being about sort of validating the American experience, and we don’t get to see so much from the other side. There’s an all Middle Eastern cast in a film called “Mosul” about the battle of Mosul against ISIS after the major U.S. combat was over in Iraq. There’s actually an animated film by Studio Ghibli of all places called “Grave Of The Fireflies”…

    (SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES”)

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #5: (As character, non-English language spoken).

    UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR #6: (As character, non-English language spoken).

    LAWRENCE: …About two young siblings trying to survive during the final months of World War II in Japan. And those can kind of look at war experiences not from an American perspective, which is something maybe we don’t see enough of.

    GONYEA: All right, some good recommendations. That was NPR’s Quil Lawrence and Tom Bowman. Guys, thanks for joining us.

    BOWMAN: You’re welcome.

    LAWRENCE: Thank you.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)