3.9.26 Marijuana use and disarming a citizen, the labor-market weakness and Iran war, and Alexander Graham Bell’s first telephone

Summary

Podcast Summary: The World and Everything In It

Episode: March 9, 2026
Main Topics: Marijuana and Gun Rights Supreme Court case, U.S.-Iran War’s Economic Effects, History of the Telephone

Overview

This episode covers three major issues:

• The U.S. Supreme Court case debating whether habitual marijuana users can be stripped of gun rights—even if not actively using while possessing a firearm.
• Economic and labor-market effects one week into the intensified U.S.-Iran conflict, especially around job numbers and volatile oil markets.
• A segment on Alexander Graham Bell and the invention of the telephone, exploring how this technological leap gave rise to modern communications.

The tone throughout is serious but accessible, blending legal, economic, and historical insights with real-world implications.

---

1. Legal Docket: Marijuana Use and Gun Rights

Segment Timestamp: 06:42 – 18:04

Key Points

• Case Focus:
  Can the federal government prohibit someone from owning a firearm due to regular use of a controlled substance—specifically, marijuana? This is being decided under U.S. v. Himani, and shaped by the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which requires gun restrictions to fit within the nation’s historical firearm regulation traditions.

• Background:
  Ali Daniyal Himani, at the center of the case, is a dual U.S.–Pakistan citizen flagged by federal authorities for reasons unrelated to gun or drug use. A search found marijuana, cocaine, and a handgun at his home; he admits to smoking marijuana roughly every other day.

• Arguments Presented:

  • Government (Sarah Harris):
    The restriction is “temporarily disarming habitual marijuana users while they persist in using frequently. That tailored restriction easily fits within the historical tradition of disarming categories of people who present a special danger of misuse.”
    (07:57)
  • Defense (Aaron Murphy):
    The government’s approach is far too broad; the law is unconstitutionally vague and lacks fair notice for those it affects.
    “It can't constitutionally be applied to anyone because the statute fails to provide fair notice of what makes someone an unlawful user of a controlled substance who can be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.”
    (08:20)

• Key Supreme Court Questions and Moments:

  • Historical Parallels:
    Justice Gorsuch humorously referenced the founding era’s drinking habits:
    “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day … are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?”
    (11:18)

  • Scope of Danger:
    Justice Barrett:
    “Let's assume that someone takes their spouse's Ambien prescription ... What is it about Ambien itself that would make one of us more likely to be dangerous? It's not.”
    (12:48-13:01) Nick Eicher adds: “It's the lawfulness that makes the government's theory about danger a lot more difficult to explain.” (13:03)

  • Changing Legal Status of Marijuana:
    Trump has ordered marijuana moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, potentially undermining the government’s argument about its danger. Justice Barrett explored hypothetical Congressional responses if marijuana’s potency was proven dangerous.
    (13:52-14:27)

  • Modern vs. Historic Substance Use:
    Justice Alito:
    “The most commonly used illegal drugs either had not been invented at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment … Marijuana existed. But my understanding is that it was not consumed to any degree by people in the United States until at least the beginning of the 20th century.”
    (16:33-17:10)

• Likely Impacts:

  • If Himani wins, millions of Americans using marijuana legally under state law could not automatically lose their gun rights.
  • If the government prevails, broad disarmament of habitual users of any controlled substance—including for medical reasons—could follow.

Notable Quotes

• “What if he took one Gummy Bear to help him sleep every other day? Disarm him for life?” — Nick Eicher, summarizing the practical problem with the law (12:15)

---

2. Monday Money Beat: Labor Market & Iran War Effects

Segment Timestamp: 19:00 – 29:24
Guest: David Bonson, financial analyst

Key Points

• Labor Market Weakness:

  • February jobs report: Net loss of more than 90,000 jobs, with revised figures indicating a total decline of up to 161,000. Most losses are in the private sector (84,000–86,000 jobs), not just government jobs.
  • Manufacturing has lost jobs every month for the past year, undermining the claim that tariffs drive up domestic manufacturing employment.

    “Manufacturing jobs have been down every month for the last year … the total jobs picture was really bad. The unemployment rate ticked up. The labor participation force ticked down.”
    (19:56–21:44, David Bonson)

• Interest Rates and the Fed:

  • The Federal Reserve’s continued high interest rates may now be partially responsible for sluggish job growth, with “Fed fingerprints” visible especially in construction and real estate employment.

    “I don't blame the Fed ... but it would also be probably economically ignorant to say that it isn't any factor at all … there's some Fed fingerprints here.”
    (22:28, Bonson)

• Impact of the U.S.–Iran Conflict:

  • Oil prices have jumped 31% over the past week due to the conflict, reaching above $90 a barrel. The spike is seen as a short-term supply shock.
  • Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is crippled—not by military blockade, but by “fear and trepidation” among shipping operators fearing drone attacks. Insurance concerns have forced more than 140 cargo ships to anchor and wait.

    “Iran has not closed the Strait of Hormuz. There's 147 cargo ships that have dropped anchor that have essentially said we're not moving because of drone attacks … from an insurance standpoint, the operators are not comfortable going.”
    (27:24, Bonson)

• Oil Futures:

  • Oil price futures indicate this spike may be temporary; anticipated sanctions relief and restoration of shipping could cause prices to drop in coming months.

---

3. World History Book: Alexander Graham Bell’s First Telephone

Segment Timestamp: 30:00 – 35:17
Reported by: Emma Eicher
Guest: Stuart Smolkin, Asheville Radio Museum

Key Points

• Telegraph Origins:
  The journey to practical electronic communication started with Faraday’s 1831 discovery that changing magnetic fields could produce electric currents, which inspired electric telegraphy using Morse code.

  "You had to be able to convert the dots and dashes into a message." – Smolkin (31:11)

• Bell’s Innovation:

  • Bell sought to send multiple messages along the same wire and ultimately voice itself.
  • His transmitter worked like a human diaphragm, translating voice vibrations into electrical signals traveling along wires, then recreating sound at the receiver.

  "He then got the idea that, okay, you could use sound waves to operate something mechanically." — Emma Eicher (31:41)
  "And Bell thought he could figure out a way to replicate voice over the wires." — Stuart Smolkin (31:49)

• Patent Rivalry:

  • Elisha Gray also applied for a similar patent on the same day as Bell.
  • Bell was awarded the patent after evidence he’d conceived the idea first, not simply filed first—sparking intense legal battles with Western Union that ended when the Supreme Court upheld Bell’s claim.

• Evolution of Telecommunications:

  • The candlestick phone became an icon in American homes and pop culture.
  • AT&T, Bell’s company, soon dominated the industry, helping pioneer broadcast radio and eventually wireless technologies.

  “All the things we depend on, basically the foundation was radio.” — Emma Eicher (35:09)

Memorable Pop Culture Moment

• Audio snippets referenced candlestick phones in “His Girl Friday” and “The Andy Griffith Show,” highlighting the telephone’s cultural impact.

---

Timestamps Recap for Key Segments

• Legal Docket (Marijuana & Guns): 06:42–18:04
• Monday Money Beat (Labor, Oil, Iran): 19:00–29:24
• World History Book (Telephone): 30:00–35:17

---

Standout Quotes

• On the historic challenge of defining "habitual use":

  “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?” — Justice Gorsuch (11:18)

• On the spiral of legal classification:

  “It's the lawfulness that makes the government's theory about danger a lot more difficult to explain.” — Nick Eicher (13:03)

• On oil prices and the Iran war:

  “This is a spike in oil prices that is going to impact prices. And yet we might be talking about it very differently on the other side depending on how the Iranian leadership aspect shakes out.” — David Bonson (26:35)

---

Summary

This episode highlights the tension between evolving cultural norms and legal traditions (as seen in the Supreme Court’s struggle over marijuana and gun rights), explores the web of consequences the Iran war is having on jobs and energy prices, and draws a fascinating line from Bell’s first telephone to the radio-driven technologies we rely on today. Listeners are treated to nuanced legal and economic analysis, plus a vibrant slice of technological history.

Transcript

[Mary Reichert]

Good morning. Drugs and guns. The Supreme Court to decide whether they can legally mix.

[Nick Eicher]

What if he took one gummy bear to help him sleep every other day? Disarm him for life. Legal docket is ahead. Also today, the Monday money beat. A week into the war with Iran, we talk economic effects with David Bonson and the world history book how the first telephone kick started the technology of today.

[Emma Eicher]

So Alexander Graham Bell got interested in the idea of could you somehow send multiple messages at the same time?

[Mary Reichert]

It's Monday, March 9th. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichert]

Time now for the news with Mark Mellinger.

[Mark Mellinger]

A seventh American service member has died from combat injuries sustained in the U. S. Israeli conflict with Iran. U.S. officials say an army soldier stationed in Saudi Arabia has died from injuries suffered there during an Iranian attack on March 1. The first six US combat deaths were army reservists killed during an attack in Kuwait. The death toll from what's known in the US as Operation Epic Fury keeps climbing. Besides at least 1230 deaths in Iran, at least 300 people have been killed in Lebanon where the Iran backed terror group Hezbollah is trading attacks with Israel. Around a dozen people in Israel have been killed. Meanwhile, Iranian state TV has announced the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's hardliner son Mojtama Khamenei is succeeding him as Iran's supreme leader. The defiant move goes against what President Trump wanted. Trump has called the younger Khamenei a lightweight. The president also wanted a hand in select Iran's new leader and has said anyone who doesn't have his personal approval won't last long. Trump is demanding an unconditional surrender from Iran. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi says that's not happening.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, they have to explain why they

[David Bonson]

started this aggression before we come to the point to even consider a ceasefire.

[Mark Mellinger]

Arachi on NBC's Meet the Press. Republican Louisiana Senator John Kennedy restated part of the rationale given several times publicly by the Trump administration. Iran had taken baby steps to restart its nuclear program. Its plan was to stockpile enough missiles so that it could destroy the Middle East. Kennedy on Fox News Sunday. President Trump says epic fury will continue until Iran can't fight anymore. Israel, with the help of American intelligence attacked Iran's oil infrastructure Sunday while Iran continued strikes on the U.S. s Middle east allies. The U.S. has ordered all non essential diplomats and families to leave Saudi Arabia as Iran steps up retaliation there. The U.S. state Department says more than 32,000Americans have successfully evacuated from the Middle east over the past week and are back home. The State Department says it's completed close to two dozen charter flights to help with that effort. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace this has not

[Mary Reichert]

been an easy task, but in seven days to have evacuated that many Americans, we're very grateful for it and grateful for everyone's hard work on the ground.

[Mark Mellinger]

Democrats are criticizing the State Department saying the Trump administration lacked a plan to evacuate Americans from the Middle east before the strikes on Iran began. The military operation in Iran has interrupted the global flow of oil, sending energy costs and the price at the gas pump way up in the US Gas buddy head of petroleum analysis Pat Dahan says the national average as we speak here up to about $3.45 a gallon now stands 51 cents higher than where we were a week ago when we stood at 294. He says that is the fifth largest weekly increase GasBuddy has seen going back to 2000. Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the spike is temporary. He says it's based on fears that the conflict in Iran will be a long, drawn out crisis, which he insists it won't be. Competing demonstrations outside New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani's home turned dangerous over the week. That's what it sounded like as an 18 year old counter protester threw a homemade improvised explosive device or ied, sending protesters and police scrambling. No one was hurt. The scene came during a collision of dueling protests. One an anti Islam protest led by right wing influencer Jake Lang, the other a counter protest. Two Langs again, it was one of the counter protesters who threw the explosive. New York police say the ied, one of three suspects, suspicious devices, they're now investigating could have caused injury or death. Both young men under arrest in connection with the IED admit to being inspired by isis. Crews are surveying the damage in Oklahoma and Michigan after tornadoes roared through late last week killing at least six people and leaving more than a dozen hurt. Among those killed, Jody owens and her 13 year old daughter Lexi in Major County, Oklahoma. Jody's brother Justin Zont talked to KFOR tv.

[Nick Eicher]

They're amazing people and anyone who knows

[David Bonson]

them will be devastated by this news.

[Nick Eicher]

This just feels like a movie. It feels like I've watched a movie and someone. I just, I don't believe it's real.

[Mark Mellinger]

Still in Union City, Michigan, where at least four people were killed, it was the most violent tornado this early in the year in Michigan's history. I'm Mark Mellinger Straight ahead on Legal Docket a case involving gun rights and drug use, plus more on the effect on oil prices a week into the conflict with Iran. This is the world and everything in it.

[Nick Eicher]

It's the world and everything in it for this ninth day of March. We are so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Eicher.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichert. Time now for Legal Docket today. Another case in the Supreme Court's effort to define the limits of the Second Amendment. Can the federal government strip someone of the right to a firearm based on regular use of a controlled substance, even when that person is sober and keeps the gun at home for self defense?

[Nick Eicher]

The question comes up because of a landmark 2022 ruling that reshaped how courts evaluate gun laws, New York State Rifle and Pistol association vs. Bruin. Under that Bruin decision, the government cannot justify restrictions simply by arguing public safety. It has to show that the law fits within the nation's historical tradition of regulating firearms. That's the framework the justices are applying in today's case. US Vani. The relevant law is part of the Gun control Act of 1968. It bars gun possession by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. The government says the rule is about public safety and whether habitual drug users can be disarmed as a class. At the Supreme Court, government lawyer Sarah

[Mary Reichert]

Harris the Second Amendment does not prohibit the government from temporarily disarming habitual marijuana users while they persist in using frequently. That tailored restriction easily fits within the historical tradition of disarming categories of people who present a special danger of misuse. But the drug user's lawyer says that rating is too broad. She argues that the real question is whether someone using marijuana a few times per week can be made into a felon for having a gun secured at home. The lawyer is Aaron Murphy. It can't constitutionally be applied to anyone because the statute fails to provide fair notice of what makes someone an unlawful user of a controlled substance who can be stripped of their Second Amendment rights. Murphy argues the government's historical comparison is wrong, too. Federal lawyers point to old laws restricting habitual drunkards, but Murphy calls the comparison flawed. Indeed, the whole point of the doctrine was to distinguish those who consumed alcohol frequently, but mostly in moderation from those who so habitually consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication as to impair their ability to function, even in whatever moments of sobriety they may have had.

[Nick Eicher]

Her client is the man at the center of this fight, Ali Daniyal Himani. Now, some background on why federal authorities were already paying attention to him. Hemani grew up around Dallas, but he's a dual citizen of the US And Pakistan. Himani's lawyers describe him as a college graduate and a valued member of his Shia Muslim community. Federal authorities searched his phone during a 2019 border crossing and later said it contained communications about possible fraud involving Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. The US has designated the IRGC a terrorist organization and is now engaged in a war against it.

[Mary Reichert]

The government also notes Himani traveled to Iran to commemorate Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed in a US drone strike back in 2020. Prosecutors point to a video of Hermani's mother saying that she prayed her sons would one day become martyrs like Soleimani. Interesting as that is, the Supreme Court is not deciding whether Himani poses a national security risk. Using a warrant, the FBI searched Himani's home and found a Glock handgun along with cocaine and marijuana. Himani surrendered the gun and told agents he smoked pot roughly every other day.

[Nick Eicher]

A federal grand jury charged him with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of controlled substances. And the constitutional question that follows arises because of the Bruin case, that landmark supreme court decision in 2022 that reshaped the way courts review gun laws. So the issue now is whether this section of federal gun law violates the Second Amendment as applied to Himani.

[Mary Reichert]

That Bruin decision said the government cannot justify gun restrictions just by saying that they promote public safet. Now the government has to show the restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Sounds simple enough, but how close must a modern law be to an older one to count as part of that historical tradition?

[Nick Eicher]

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the American Temperance Society back in the day said eight shots of whiskey a day only made you an occasional drunkard. We have to remember the founding era. John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol. He only had three or four glasses of wine a night. Okay, are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory? The government says that analogy still works. Its lawyer argued that laws historically allowed authorities to restrain people considered persistently dangerous because of intoxication. But Himani's lawyer called that a mistake. Her client used marijuana every other day or so. But there is no record of addiction, impairment, or intoxication while he possessed a gun. Gorsuch seemed aligned with that. So we don't even know the quantity of how much he uses every other day. What if he took one Gummy Bear to help him sleep every other day? Disarm him for life?

[Mary Reichert]

But the government's lawyer argued it's only a temporary restriction. Himani could regain his gun rights by simply stopping his illegal drug use. But that exchange led some justices to question whether the law actually tracks dangerousness or mere legality. Justice Amy Coney Barrett used a different example. Let's assume that someone takes their spouse's Ambien prescription.

[Nick Eicher]

The spouse takes it too lawfully with

[Mary Reichert]

the prescription, but then, you know you take it unlawfully because you break into your spouse's Ambien jar. What is it about Ambien itself that would make one of us more likely to be dangerous? It's not.

[Nick Eicher]

It's the lawfulness that makes the government's theory about danger a lot more difficult to explain. It led the court into a discussion of the federal drug classification system. Under federal law, controlled substances are divided into schedules based on their medical uses and potential for abuse. Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Marijuana is in Schedule 1 under federal law.

[Mary Reichert]

Schedule 3 drugs, by contrast, have accepted medical uses and less potential for dependence. That matters politically. But under the gun law at issue here, it might not matter legally. And that's because the relevant gun law bars gun possession by unlawful users of any controlled substance, no matter which schedule it's in.

[Nick Eicher]

But still, marijuana's federal status may soon change. President Trump, back in December, signed an executive order directing the Drug Enforcement Administration to move marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. If that happens, it weakens the government's argument that marijuana belongs in the same dangerous category as, say, heroin or fentanyl. Justice Barrett followed up with this to Himani's lawyer. You win this case, and Congress conducts

[Mary Reichert]

hearings that hears all this evidence about the concentrations of THC in marijuana that's made today, and then passes the same

[Nick Eicher]

statute with findings along the lines I just sketched out.

[Mary Reichert]

Can Congress do that consistently with the Second Amendment? So I think you'd have to look at that evidence. That reference reflects one of the government's supporting briefs. The advocacy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana argued that cannabis these days is much more potent than in the past. That increases the risk of psychosis, schizophrenia, and impaired judgment. So it makes sense for laws to restrict gun possession by regular users.

[Nick Eicher]

But Hamani's lawyer said the courts still have to ask Whether the category Congress targets marijuana users aligns with the historical tradition of gun regulation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a similar concern.

[Stuart Smolkin]

The entire point I thought of the Bruin test was to say that the only thing the modern legislature gets to

[Nick Eicher]

do is follow the judgments of the founding era legislature around who was dangerous and who gets to be disarmed. Justice Jackson suggested it's not enough for Congress to declare today's pot smokers dangerous. The government has to show lawmakers in the founding era made a similar judgment about a similar class of people. Chief Justice John Roberts worried about endless litigation over the dangers of this or that drug. If Himani wins. Well, I know your client just wants

[Emma Eicher]

to prevail, which is understandable, but your

[Nick Eicher]

argument, it seems to me, I mean, why doesn't it apply to any drug, whether it's pcp, methamphetamine, whatever?

[Emma Eicher]

It seems that, again, to the extent

[Nick Eicher]

that you're overriding the judgment of Congress

[Emma Eicher]

and the executive branch with respect to the listing of particular drugs, I don't know why that same approach doesn't apply to any drug.

[Mary Reichert]

Justice Samuel Alito raised a similar practical concern. If Himani prevails, would criminal trials turn into scientific hearings about the dangers of each and every substance?

[Nick Eicher]

Would experts would testify on all of these matters and the jury would decide whether the person met the test for being a danger?

[Mary Reichert]

I don't think the government's gonna. Justice Alito also pointed to an historical wrinkle.

[Nick Eicher]

The most commonly used illegal drugs either had not been invented at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment or the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Heroin was invented in 1874. Cocaine, 1855. Methamphetamine, 1893, fentanyl, 1959. Marijuana existed. But my understanding, yeah, hemp was grown for industrial purposes. My understanding is that it was not consumed to any degree by people in the United States until at least the beginning of the 20th century.

[Mary Reichert]

The justices agreed that the founding generation accepted restrictions on guns while actively intoxicated. But a harder question is whether that tradition can justify disarming a person based on repeat marijuana use, even when that person is sober. If Himani wins, and I think he will, it'll limit the government's ability to prosecute gun owners who are pot smokers. That'll affect millions of Americans who live in states where cannabis is legal under state law but still illegal under federal law. If the government wins, it could disarm anyone who uses a controlled substance habitually, even if it's for medical reasons or in a state where it is legal. And that's this week's legal docket.

[Nick Eicher]

Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network. Their report shows how Christian entrepreneurs advance the gospel through business. Ambassadorsimpact.com

[Mark Mellinger]

From Dort Discovery Days, an academic

[Nick Eicher]

summer camp for sixth through eighth graders to grow in their faith and build friendships. Dort.

[Mark Mellinger]

Edu Discovery.

[Nick Eicher]

And from Pensacola Christian College, Academic Excellence Biblical Worldview Affordable Cost, go PCCI Eduardo World.

[Mary Reichert]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday MONEY beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning, David.

[David Bonson]

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, the jobs report for February came in as a really unhappy surprise. The U.S. economy losing a net of more than 90,000 jobs. The gains that we saw in December and January got revised down as well. So all taken together, that's 150, 160,000 jobs that we thought we may have had that we did not have. So the labor market is looking all of a sudden quite a bit weaker than economists just a month ago. So when you step back, do you see it as a real signal of weakness in the labor market, or is it just another reminder of how noisy these reports each month can be?

[David Bonson]

Unfortunately, it's a lot more of the former. Look, I'll give some qualifiers. There's a little bit of noise maybe that might allow for some bounce back in the March report. But let's just be real clear on a few things. The revisions are almost the worst part because they take away some of the story that maybe things were starting to starting to look better in the last couple months. It was another 60,000 on top of the 90. You ended up with 161,000 net job decline from this report. One of the talking points has been, well, the total jobs number has worsened, but it's mostly government jobs that we're losing in the productive part of the private sector is still doing fine. But this was 86,000. It might have been 84,000. I mean, it was almost entirely of the 90,000 this month. Private sector, I think it was 6,000 jobs lost in the governmental sector. So on almost every point. And by the way, the manufacturing jobs, Nick, were down by 12,000. So the notion that tariffs are working to bring back manufacturing employment is most certainly not happening. I believe manufacturing jobs have been down every month for the last year. The total jobs picture was really bad. The unemployment rate ticked up. The labor participation force ticked down but then I mentioned, you know, you could try to find a little bit of noise. There was a nursing strike that I think ended and that if that was factored in, that might allow for about 20,000 jobs coming back. So there, you know, there were certainly seasonal issues with retail because of weather. And even though they tried to factor that into the seasonal adjustments, they might not have gotten those fully right. So we'll see if some of the restaurant and bar jobs that were down might come back with weather improvement. But my point being we have a precarious labor environment and we haven't had robust hiring for a long time. And the upside, the glass is half full, has been that firings haven't been big. But now you're starting to see negative job growth and that becomes much more concerning.

[Nick Eicher]

I do want to ask about the Federal Reserve, David. The Fed is still holding interest rates in what it calls a restrictive state. Is the central bank a bit late to the party here in bringing rates down toward neutral?

[David Bonson]

I would like to say no, I don't blame the Fed because it's uncomfortable for me to think that I want the interest rate setting policy to be this factor of driving job growth. But it would also be probably economically ignorant to say that it isn't any factor at all, that any degree of tightening above a neutral rate, certainly on the margin, would be a factor in some financial services and some real estate. The construction aspect is a big deal because the housing freeze has impacted employment opportunities there. So it's harder to measure. That's why I hesitate. But no, I'm comfortable trying to be honest and objective that there's some Fed fingerprints here. But based on what I see in the small and mid sized business and the manufacturing side, I suspect that tariffs are a factor in this as well.

[Nick Eicher]

David, I'd like to turn to the war in Iran. Obviously we have more information than we had last week when we talked. Oil prices have now moved above $90 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz effectively is shut down for shipping. So beginning with the oil market, is this about what you expected or has the spike been a bit more severe?

[David Bonson]

Well, the difference is the timing of it. The fact that oil was only up 5.5% the day we last spoke last Monday was significantly less than most people would have expected. It was almost like no impact at all. And that each day it just sort of ticked higher and higher, this kind of incremental issue. I gave a speech in Nashville, Tennessee on Thursday night and said, hey, oil is up, up 17% on the week that's not as bad as it could have been, but it's not nothing. But, you know, we're now looking at a 17% week over week increase and that becomes a factor. And then by Friday it was up another 9.5% and it got to be 31% for the week. And now that's, that's a real move. Yeah, I think that the other issue, and I highlighted this in my own dividendcafe.com over the weekend, there's something called backwardation and it's the opposite of what's called contango, where people are buying contracts to secure certain prices at different points out. And when you're paying less for something in a month and more in the future, or the opposite, more in a month but less in the future. That's what backwardation is. Right now, oil futures going out nine months, 12 months are in the 60s, and in the next 30 days they're in the 90s. So there is a significant dramatic backwardation, which is a way of saying people believing that these are temporal supply shocks largely driven by straight or hormuz problems. And I wonder if there's a part of this Nick, that is on the back end, that further out point, predicting not only did all these short term things get better, which they certainly will, by the way, but maybe much better, meaning maybe this is by no means a prediction, but you start to wonder if some of this is evident in oil future prices, that Iran might end up with a leadership that the US can work with, that they can pull sanctions from, that there can be international sanctions relief, because if Iran became a global exporter of oil, you remember they've been very, very handcuffed for some time by sanctions. Their contribution to global oil supply has been really constrained relative to their capacity. That could push oil prices down quite a bit in the future. So we have to talk about this right now as a spike in oil prices that is going to impact prices. And yet we might be talking about it very differently on the other side of this depending on how the Iranian leadership aspect of this shakes out.

[Nick Eicher]

Right. Well, David, there is one thing I've really been wondering about, and that's the broader shipping picture. And I'm not talking just about the Strait of Hormuz, although I am talking about that, but also the possibility of the Houthis in Yemen launching attacks that would affect Red Sea shipping. So potentially we might have two global choke points at the same time. But here's what I'm not fully understanding. If Iran is taking the brunt of the military strikes right now. And clearly Iran is taking the brunt of the military strikes. How is it that Iran is able effectively to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz? Now maybe this is more of a military question than an economic question, but why is it that the US simply hasn't been able to clear that lane and restore that shipping?

[David Bonson]

Yeah, but this isn't a military issue. This is an economic issue. Iran has not closed the Strait of Hormuz. There's 147 cargo ships that have dropped anchor that have essentially said we're not moving because the drone attacks, which is the one capability that Iran appears to have, they essentially the fear of something going on that their safety cannot be secured at this time. So from an insurance standpoint, the operators are not comfortable going. The big Danish shipping company Mares closed economy a couple routes from Middle east to both Asia and Europe over the weekend. Now by the way, this is not just an energy story or oil story because that cargo shipping, the containers, this ends up impacting a lot more than just energy. It's good the shipment of goods and you see ship now look container prices and shipping prices went up this week but they had been very low. So they came up off of a low price. But I don't think it's that Iran is militarily blocked. Strait of Hormuz is that there's enough fear and trepidation that the companies that operate in the Strait of Hormuz do not want to operate right now. And that's what the US Is looking to secure that they'll ensure the safety of some of these things moving. You might see this move pretty quickly. The US has the capacity to get some the of and I happen to believe that there's been a lot of conversations on how that could be facilitated even outside merely the military aspect, which obviously we have a lot to say about as well.

[Nick Eicher]

David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. David writes [e-mail] and at World Opinions. David, hope you have a great week this week. Just want to thank you again for the work that you did with our staff this past week at our retreat. Very much appreciated. So thank you for that and thank you for this. We'll see you next week.

[David Bonson]

Well, thank you. It was an absolute blessing to be there. Thanks so much.

[Mark Mellinger]

Nick.

[Nick Eicher]

Good morning. This is the World and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichard. Up next, how telephones Got their start and the technology that made them pop. World's Emma Eicher visited the Asheville Radio Museum in North Carolina, where she spoke with tour guide and radio enthusiast Stuart Smolkin about the science that helped shape the modern world.

[Emma Eicher]

Do you use Bluetooth? That's radio. Do you have a wireless Internet router at home? That's radio. Do you have a wireless remote for opening your car door? That's radio.

[Stuart Smolkin]

The shelves surrounding Stuart Smolkin are filled with old technology. Candlestick telephones, wood carved radios, boxy computers and electrical telegraphs like this one. Smolkin says telecommunications using radio waves changed the world. It all began in 1831, when scientist Michael Faraday discovered changing magnetic fields can induce electric currents. That led to widespread use of electric telegraphs, which was a way to send messages over wires using electrical pulses. They used Morse code to do it.

[Emma Eicher]

You had to be able to convert the dots and dashes into a message.

[Stuart Smolkin]

But telegraphy was expensive, since copper wires had to be manually placed between towns and messages had to be short. In the mid-1800s, scientists raced to find a better way to communicate.

[Emma Eicher]

So Alexander Graham Bell got interested in the idea of could you somehow send multiple messages at the same time?

[Stuart Smolkin]

Scottish inventor Alexander Graham Bell wondered how to harness these electromagnetic fields.

[Emma Eicher]

He then got the idea that, okay, you could use sound waves to operate something mechanically.

[Stuart Smolkin]

And Bell thought he could figure out a way to replicate voice over the wires. So he teamed up with engineers to make it possible. His invention used a transmitter attached to an electric wire. It functioned like a human diaphragm. A drum vibrated when a voice spoke into it and then those vibrations traveled across the wire to the receiver where it recreated the sound.

[Emma Eicher]

And on the other end would be an electromagnet that received the electrical signal that now replicated the voice. And it would operate in the AVA's to cause a diaphragm to vibrate, which would create sound that you could hear 150 years ago.

[Stuart Smolkin]

In February, Bell seemed to be the first to the finish line and filed a patent for the first telephone. But a rival named Elisha Gray also submitted a similar patent on the same day. That launched a debate on intellectual property rights. About a month later, on March 7, Bell won the patent based on old drawings that proved he invented it first.

[Emma Eicher]

The patent was awarded based on who got the idea first, not who filed first.

[Stuart Smolkin]

But things turned ugly. The Western Union Telegraph Co. Filed a lawsuit to challenge Bell's patent. They wanted to bury Bell's fledgling telephone business, fearing the competition. The litigation Climbed all the way to the Supreme Court in the so called telephone cases of 1888.

[Emma Eicher]

And then I think the icing on the cake was when expert testimony claimed that what Gray had was not only different, but when never work.

[Stuart Smolkin]

So Bell won the patent war and his telephone reinvented the communications industry. One of the earliest telephones was the candlestick phone. The mouthpiece is fitted at the top of the stand and a separate receiver is held to the ear.

[Nick Eicher]

Press room, huh?

[Mary Reichert]

Wait a minute.

[Mark Mellinger]

Hello, Sarge McHugh talking.

[Nick Eicher]

Hold the line, will you? What?

[Stuart Smolkin]

Candlestick phones are all over the newsroom in the 1940 hit film his Girl Friday. And at the sheriff's station in the 1960s sitcom the Andy Griffith Show. Barney Fife used one to ring up his sweetheart Juanita.

[Nick Eicher]

Juanita, lovely dear Juanita. From your head down to your feet there is nothing hangs those feet.

[Stuart Smolkin]

Bell's company, American Telephone and Telegraph, eventually pushed Western Union out of the telephone business. This was the same telegraph giant that once tried to ruin Bell. Bell would go on to dominate American telecommunications for most of the 20th century as AT&T. AT&T pioneered the idea of using radio waves to create wireless telephones. Using its groundbreaking research, scientists eventually invented broadcast radio. In the 1900s.

[Emma Eicher]

You started out with just telegraphy and then you got wireless telegraphy and then you got radio that, that could send wireless telegraphy and the ability to send voice and music. So you put this all together and that's really how radio communications got started.

[Stuart Smolkin]

And it didn't stop there. The first television sets in the twenties used radio waves along with complex mechanical systems.

[Emma Eicher]

Black and white picture is transmitted the same way voice is transmitted.

[Stuart Smolkin]

Bell's telephone paved the way for the technology of the future.

[Emma Eicher]

All the things we depend on are basically the foundation was radio.

[Stuart Smolkin]

That's this week's World History Book. I'm Emma Eicher.

[Mary Reichert]

Tomorrow, the US battles deeper into Iran will have a report and a push for states to work together to amend the Constitution. That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reicher.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Iker. The world and everything in it comes to you from world radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says one gives freely, yet grows all the richer. Another withholds what he should give and only suffers. Want whoever brings blessing will be enriched. And the one who waters will himself be watered. The people curse him who who holds back grain. But a blessing is on the head of him who sells it. Verses 24 through 26 of Proverbs 11. Go now in grace and peace.