MEGAN BASHAM, HOST: Good morning!
How should Christians balance compassion for immigrants with respect for the law?
What about the reaction to stay-at-home orders—why does it seem to be running along party lines?
Some World Journalism Institute students put a few tough questions to John Stonestreet.
NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Culture Friday.
Plus the new documentary that tries to reclaim Jane Roe for the pro-abortion movement.
And your listener feedback.
BASHAM: It’s Friday, May 29th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Megan Basham.
EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!
BASHAM: Up next, Kent Covington has the news.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump signs order to pull liability shield from social media companies » President Trump used his pen Thursday to fire back at Twitter and other social media platforms. He signed an executive order that he said is aimed at holding social media companies accountable for policing speech in a politically partisan way.
That followed Twitter’s decision to selectively place fact check warning links under two of the president’s tweets rebutting his assertions about mail-in voting.
Trump told reporters at the White House…
TRUMP: The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow ban are editorial decisions pure and simple. They’re editorial decisions. In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint.
He said companies like Twitter are largely shielded from liability over the content people post on their platforms based on the idea that they’re neutral platforms.
His executive order calls for new regulations under the Communications Decency Act. It would remove that legal shield if social media companies—quote—“engage in censoring or any political conduct.”
But it’s unclear how much the Trump administration can really accomplish without an act of Congress. It’s also unclear how many defenders Twitter will have in Washington.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has no problem with Twitter’s move in principle, but questioned its implementation.
PELOSI: Yes, we like Twitter to put up their—fact check the president, but it seems to be very selective.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Thursday seemed to agree that Twitter had in fact acted as an editor.
ZUCKERBERG: I don’t think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth. I think that’s kind of a dangerous line to get down to in terms of deciding what is true or what isn’t.
Zuckerberg said everything politicians say receives—quote—“a ton of scrutiny already.”
U.S. coronavirus deaths pass 100k as New York City prepares to reopen » Also on Thursday, President Trump marked what he called a “very sad milestone.” Just over 100,000 Americans have now died from COVID-19. The president said “to all of the families and friends of those who have passed, I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy and love for everything that these great people stood for and represent. God be with you!”
But things are looking up in the U.S. epicenter of the outbreak. With new cases and deaths falling, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says New York City is the only part of the state that remains almost entirely closed. And officials are now preparing to reopen the Big Apple.
CUOMO: They’re now disinfecting every train and every bus on a daily basis. They’re piloting the use of UV light technology to kill viruses in subway cars.
Cuomo said New York was the hardest hit, but—quote—“We’re going to reopen as the smartest.” He said his state is leading the world in coronavirus testing, conducting more tests “per capita than any country on the globe.”
India mired in triple disaster of pandemic, heat and locusts » In some parts of the world, though, the COVID-19 crisis is still worsening. The outbreak continues to spread in India, which now finds itself in the eye of a perfect storm. WORLD’s Anna Johansen has that story.
ANNA JOHANESEN, REPORTER: India reported more than 7,000 new cases on Wednesday, as the infection curve continues to climb. But the problem is actually far worse than that. Only one out of every 400 Indian citizens have been tested, compared to about one-in-20 in the United States.
Still, Indian officials are working to end a months-long lockdown as the country finds itself in a catch 22: Ease restrictions and risk further fueling the virus or remain closed and further devastate the economy of an already impoverished country.
And, as if that wasn’t enough, India is grappling with dangerously scorching temperatures and the worst locust invasion in decades.
As the insects devastated crops, temperatures soared to 118 degrees Fahrenheit in the capital New Delhi this week. Millions lack running water and air conditioning, leaving many to seek relief under shady trees in public parks.
Reporting for WORLD, I’m Anna Johansen.
Chinese legislature approves Hong Kong “national security” law » China’s legislature on Thursday signed off on a so-called national security law in Hong Kong.
The vote was nearly unanimous and was never in doubt. China’s legislature is largely ceremonial and routinely rubber stamps the orders of the ruling Communist Party. And China is imposing the law without the consent of Hong Kong lawmakers.
With the new law, Beijing seizes the power to punish anything it considers to be sedition or foreign interference in Hong Kong. And U.S. State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said Thursday that China is likely to define those terms very loosely.
ORTAGUS: In the National People’s Congress in China—essentially calls these freedom loving protesters terrorists. They’re using national security in order to justify violent crackdowns on democracy.
The law also will allow security forces from China to operate in the territory.
Violent protests over Floyd death spread beyond Minneapolis » AUDIO: [SOUND OF PROTEST]
Thousands gathered once again in Minnesota’s Twin Cities last night to peacefully protest the death of a black man in police custody. But violent protesters also returned.
In St. Paul, officers in riot gear were seen standing in line in front of a Target, trying to keep out looters, who were smashing windows of other businesses.
Throughout Minneapolis, stores boarded up their windows and the city shut down nearly its entire light-rail system and all bus service out of safety concerns.
Earlier in the day, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz called in the National Guard to try to stem the violence.
And violent protests spread beyond Minnesota. In Denver, protesters blocked traffic and smashed car windows during a downtown protest. And as reporters interviewed one demonstrator, shots rang out near the Capitol building.
AUDIO: [SOUND OF GUNSHOT]
No injuries were immediately reported.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: John Stonestreet answers questions from budding Christian journalists.
Plus, your listener feedback.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MEGAN BASHAM: It’s Friday the 29th of May, 2020. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Megan Basham.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. For the past two weeks we’ve been conducting the 22nd World Journalism Institute course. As we do each year, we are working with some excellent young Christian journalists. This year, of course, we had to do things a little differently. But that didn’t stop us from editing, interviewing, writing, recording, and just digging deep into the principles of journalism with some wonderful students from across the country…
BASHAM: …across the world, as I understand it.
EICHER: True, yes, I knew that! Because the time-zone differences were playing havoc with one of those overseas students I had the privilege of working with.
Of course, one of the most important things we do at WORLD is report the news from a Biblical worldview. So for this Culture Friday, some of our WJI students were eager to participate, to ask questions.
BASHAM: They did. And so let me first introduce John Stonestreet, the president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. John, good morning to you.
JOHN STONESTREET, GUEST: Good morning.
BASHAM: John, we had lots of questions and for the sake of time we had to choose just eight, and we’ll break them right in half: four this week and four for next week.
So let’s dive right in.
REITZ: Hi, my name is Glory Reitz. I’m a student at Crowder College in Missouri. My question is, people’s reactions to COVID-19 have been really divided between extreme isolation and protests against stay-at-home orders. Do you think the division runs along party lines, geographic areas, or something else?
STONESTREET: Thanks, Glory. It’s a good question. I’m not sure that I really know the answer to that. I think that when all of this is said and done, we’re going to actually find out that there was an awful lot of motivations—some noble, some less than noble—that drove people to do what they did.
I think probably the best case take on all that we have seen—including the predictions about the virus, how bad it was going to be, what it was going to be like, and then all the policy surrounding it—the best case scenario is that we were kind of all going blind. We didn’t have a whole lot of context for this. The last pandemic took place before the culture was like it is with high mobility, centralized workplaces, and all kinds of things.
So, I think the most charitable take is that we’ve all made things up and everyone got things wrong. I do think that we’re going to start seeing—I mean, there are some states in particular where the governors’ reactions have been so kind of over the line and has been a real either restriction on freedom or clearly revealed a disdain for religious conviction and religious gatherings or really seeing work as being nonessential. And you can certainly see that difference between those who see some work or work in general as nonessential to those who see work as central to kind of who we are as individuals and for our lives together.
So, yeah, I hope—maybe that’s a non-answer way of answering your question. I think we’re going to be really surprised when all of this is said and done from what we learn.
STITES: Hello, my name is Sarah Stites. I am calling in from Goumri, Armenia and my question John has to do with the tension that I see between women’s rights and transgender rights. I’m curious if you can provide any insight or thoughts as to why many feminists actually do support the transgender movement. Thank you.
STONESTREET: Sarah, I think that’s a great question and for a long time I’ve been kind of pointing out as much as possible this kind of growing battle between the L and the T in the acronym. I don’t know that so many feminists do support the transgender movement. I think you’ve got two things at work. Number one is the older generation of feminists, particularly those that were part of the lesbian movement. They don’t support the transgender movement. And they are actually deeply committed to this idea that men just don’t understand the female experience. And when you say that, then there leaves no room there for someone to pop in and say, well, I’m a biological male. Not only do I understand the female experience, I’m going to kind of appropriate it and assume it. So, I think you see a generational divide between those who really kind of fought long and hard in the feminist movement. As opposed to maybe some younger people that would call themselves feminists but really what that means is they learned how to be woke and that means they can’t say anything against the disenfranchised group of the moment, which is the T really in the acronym.
But I think we’re going to see this more and more. We’ve had certainly some higher profile feminists, lesbian feminists in particular that have run afoul of the transgender movement. And if Martina Navertalova’s not woke enough, then the rest of us don’t really have the chance to be woke enough. And I think that’s what we’re going to see more. And I think, too, that the transgender movement has just kind of oversold any sold any sort of oppression that it’s had. And I think that that’s also going to run afoul of those who really have suffered oppression. It’s going to be different. It’s going to be seen as different and there’s not going to be that sort of room in there for them as far as I understand.
JOHNSON: Hello, my name is Seth Johnson and I’m a senior at Bob Jones University studying journalism. John, my question is, how can Christians navigate having compassion for illegal immigrants will also seeking the health of their country. Christ teaches to love those in need, but there’s also a need for the rule of law to be upheld. Is there a healthy balance between the two that we can reach, and what are some guiding principles you suggest?
STONESTREET: Well, Seth, I think that’s an interesting question. I think if you can solve that question or answer that problem then you should run for Congress immediately or write a book and sell a lot of copies of it, because I think that’s what people are trying to figure out.
Although, I would say that at some level on so many issues—this being one of them—Christians in particular just have to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. There’s not an inherent conflict between holding up rule of law but also dealing with individuals as if they’re made in the image of God. If you allow immigration and immigrants to be handled purely by policy—in other words, policy is not just a guide, policy is the tool that you use to handle immigrants—well, it’s the problem you have with any policy, right? Which is policies are impersonal. It’s like trying to do surgery with a chainsaw.
During this quarantine COVID-19 crisis, a good friend of mine was not allowed to see his wife who was really deeply struggling in the hospital for three weeks, even though we are in a relatively low area of infection. Both he and his wife had tested negative for COVID and he had his own personal protection equipment that he could bring into the hospital. She was in the hospital for two and a half weeks and then passed away and he actually did not get to see her and his sons didn’t either.
So, what this shows is that there was a policy. The policy should have been bended to respect the dignity of people. And I think this goes both ways. You don’t respect the dignity of people if you have no laws. And the flip side, you can actually have policies that serve as guides, but you have to treat individual people as individuals.
And I think that’s what’s been lacking on both sides. A law that’s not enforced is a law that gets trampled on. That’s what we’ve had in the past. And then when you try to do blanket policies instead of dealing with individual situations, then you end up with some horrible, horrible issues such as the family separation thing that we’ve seen under the last two administrations.
NOWLIN: Hello, my name is Addalai Nowlin. I am an English writing major at the University of Northwestern, St. Paul in Minnesota. My question for John Stonestreet is about Ravi Zacharias. I grew up listening to his sermons on the radio, but I’m just now learning the influence he had on the international stage. He shared the gospel with Hamas leaders, foreign diplomats, and heads of state and dialogued with well-known atheists like Sam Harris. What lessons do you think Christians can learn from Ravi’s approach to evangelism?
STONESTREET: Well, yeah, I’m a big Ravi fan. I did one of our Breakpoint commentaries on Ravi and just—my story is Ravi’s motto was helping the thinker believe and the believer to think. And I was in that second category having grown up in faith but not really having embraced the thoughtful Christianity and had really an intellectual renewal somewhere in college and Ravi was part of that. Not that I knew him, but that I was one of the many that were listening to him.
At the same time, Ravi did have an opportunity to share with unbelievers. You mentioned a handful that were more even hostile non-believers. But then you have a guy like Ben Shapiro. And this is a fascinating conversation between Ravi and Ben Shapiro, whereas they would probably agree on a whole lot of things and Ben Shapiro would not be hostile to Christianity at all, but also not believe in Jesus Christ as someone who identifies as Jewish. Same thing with Dennis Prager. Just had some really interesting conversations.
I think that there’s probably two components to this that we can learn. And so much about Ravi reminds me of Chuck Colson, so much of his story, including his passing, reminds me of Chuck Colson. And I’ve spoken about this on a number of different interviews and podcasts and articles and so on. But one is that Ravi and Chuck both never got over the fact that they were sinners who were saved by the grace of God and the person of Jesus Christ. For Chuck it was in the midst of political scandal. For Ravi it was on, as he would call it, a bed of suicide. And when you hit that sort of low and you’re lifted up, you never forget that kind of humility.
Chuck was the smartest person in the room and yet he had this deep dose of humility at the hands of Jesus Christ. And I think Ravi is an awful lot like that. And so if you don’t have that sort of real sense of what you were saved from and what you’re saved to, it’s probably going to be hard to keep the sort of humility that we saw displayed and exhibited by Ravi.
And the next thing is I think exactly part of that, which is not losing the individual in the mass. When you speak to thousands and thousands of people like Ravi did, it’s very easy to forget that you’re speaking to 1,000 individuals, 1,000 image bearers, 1,000 people with souls made in God’s image and whom God loves. And you can see this even in the questioning, even when you had kind of hostile questions that were thrown at Ravi. His goal was not to win the argument or answer the question, his goal was to compel the questioner to Christ. And both of these things have to do with remembering. It’s amazing how much of the Old Testament is about remember. How much of the Bible, actually, is about just remember. Remember who you really are and what God has saved you from and to in Jesus Christ. And remember that every person that you meet is made in the image of God. I’m sure those are not the only two things we can learn from Ravi, but those are certainly two things that were front and center for me as I thought about his life and influence over the last couple weeks.
EICHER: Student questions are among the highlights of the year for me, and I know for you, too, John. Thanks for handling these four, and we’ll do four more next week. John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Thank you, John.
STONESTREET: Thank you.
NICK EICHER: Jack Rico just graduated from a California college after earning four associates degrees in two years.
Like many other graduates this year, he did not get to celebrate in person.
He had to celebrate his in drive-by fashion.
One problem: Jack Rico is not old enough to drive.
Talking with local TV station KABC, the young man says he’s going for a history degree next.
RICO: I’m 13 so I don’t want to, like, rush everything. I’m still trying to figure it out, but I just want to focus on learning right now because that’s what I love to do.
Jack Rico was homeschooled and entered college at the age of 11. Two years later, he became the youngest person ever to graduate from Fullerton College.
He says when he’s not studying he likes to hang out and play video games. Just like any regular 13-year-old with a 4.0 college GPA.
It’s The World and Everything in It.
NICK EICHER: Today is Friday, May 29th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.
MEGAN BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: that bombshell documentary everyone in the media seemed to be talking about last week: AKA Jane Roe.
And just a quick warning to parents. Some of the film’s content may not be suitable for younger children. So if you’re listening with your kids, you might want to hit pause and come back later.
CLIP: So the Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade is now a Christian and pro-life. Could you tell us how that happened? I was desperately ashamed of being Jane Roe when I was on the other side.
Before its release, AKA Jane Roe generated tens of thousands of headlines featuring words like “stunning” and “shocking.” But four days after it hit television screens, almost no major media outlets have reviewed it. Not The New York Times, not The Huffington Post, not USA Today, not The Los Angeles Times, and not The Washington Post. In fact, not any of the publications that received early access to the film and first broke the news about McCorvey’s revelations.
That’s significant because the film’s purported aim is to give us an understanding of the “real” Jane Roe. But director Nick Sweeney makes little attempt to actually do that. Over two hours, he allows McCorvey to frame her own legend as it suits her, failing to push her beyond the personal animosities and alliances she feels in a particular moment.
Everything that comes before and after McCorvey’s “deathbed confession” is engineered to serve the big twist. Her pro-life conversion in the 1990s was, she says here, an act.
CLIP: You know I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say and that’s what I’d say.
It was all an act? Yeah, I did it well too. I am a good actress. Of course I’m not acting now.
Ta-da! Sweeney the magician pulls the tablecloth from under the neatly set pro-life narrative. The abortion-friendly press goes wild.
Lest we miss the point, there are several immediate replays. The camera then cuts to lingering reactions from pro-choice representatives. Gloria Allred gasps. Frustrated tears well in the eyes of abortion activist Charlotte Taft.
CLIP: That’s, that just really hurts. It’s big stakes, that’s all. It’s just really big stakes.
But how real is this? McCorvey herself gives us reason to question.
CLIP: I can’t speculate as to why she did what she did. Now, whether she really believes that, I don’t know.
McCorvey readily admits she delights in provoking dramatic responses.
CLIP: I had never heard her say anything like this, never. But I knew what we were doing and there were times I was sure she knew. And I wondered, is she playing us?
The obvious solution, then, would have been for Sweeney to show McCorvey the footage and record her reaction closely. Instead, he allows her to keep striking swaggering poses without cross examination.
CLIP: Did they use you as a trophy? Of course. I was the big fish.
These kinds of statements are common to the confessional booth on reality shows like The Bachelor, but we expect more from a documentary. Sweeney never probes the places where McCorvey’s bravado is inconsistent with her actions.
It’s a shame because there are a few unguarded moments when something deeper comes through. We see that McCorvey’s instinct for survival was bred from a wrenchingly hard life.
CLIP: Once she started drinking I really didn’t want to be around her. She’d get up and she’d slap me. It would make me feel insignificant and worthless.
Viewers get broad strokes of her childhood exactly as she tells it. She was attracted to girls, so she ran away to an Oklahoma hotel room at age 10 and had a sexual encounter with a female friend the same age.
It would be the height of understatement to say something like that, so early in life, raises the question of whether McCorvey suffered abuse before the incident. Incredibly, Sweeney doesn’t ask. Instead, he does what he accuses the pro-life movement of. He frames the event to suit his agenda: McCorvey’s lesbianism equals thwarted identity.
CLIP: She knew that if it were known that she was a lesbian, that she would be kicked out.
Again and again, Sweeney shrinks away from conflicts with the potential to offer more insight. Like when he allows McCorvey to shrug off the fact that she lied about being raped in her pivotal case.
CLIP: You were raped? I thought I’ll just go ahead and tell the truth. Why not? No, I wasn’t. You were not? No, I wasn’t. So all those stories are not true? Yes sir, yes. They’re not true? Right.
Tragically, McCorvey seems to see her own identity as so intertwined with Roe, she doesn’t know who she is or what value she has apart from it. She holds out the significance of her life story as a carrot. Then, understandably, resents it when the world, once more, reduces her to a figurehead.
Both the documentary and the coverage it generated fail her in the same old way. In AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey is a symbol still.
MEGAN BASHAM: Today is Friday, May 29th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Megan Basham.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Next up: your listener feedback—and I’ll say good morning to our managing editor, J.C. Derrick. Morning.
J.C. DERRICK, MANAGING EDITOR: Morning!
EICHER: Hey, before you get started, you typically have corrections, but this edition is all me. So let me just own it here.
In our Monday Legal Docket, we had the case on the Electoral College.
And in setting it up, I talked about the states electoral votes as winner-take-all, and of course there are two exceptions to that: Nebraska and Maine have systems that allow for more proportionality.
I’ll say I knew that, but in a rush to simplify, I overdid it.
All of Nebraska’s electoral votes did go for Trump, and Maine went for Clinton, but I didn’t click into the online map to see that Trump took one of the state’s electoral votes.
So my attempt to save time on Monday has cost an enormous amount of time on Friday. Lesson learned. I’ll sit in the penalty box now for two minutes.
DERRICK: Yeah, slide over, I should join you in the box because I did review it and it got past me, too. Well, serve your time in silence then.
A recent story that prompted quite a few emails and comments this month was Katie Gaultney’s remembrance of apologist Ravi Zacharias. Listener Jon Krape recorded his appreciation in a voice memo on his smartphone.
AUDIO: The memories she recounted of Christ’s transformation in his life echo powerfully in my heart. It was a very fitting encomium for a man who was instrumental in catalyzing similar change in the hearts of so many. The chorus that soars as Katie finishes literally brought me to tears. Thankful tears, for great memories. Thankful emotions for incredible music. And amazing hope for a future in paradise.
DERRICK: I should add that a couple of people did not like that we mentioned two recent controversies about Ravi Zacharias and how he responded to those. That was not an accident. We want to be fair, but we are journalists, and what we did was produce a journalistically sound story—no different than any other public figure. No one is perfect, as Ravi Zacharias so ably taught throughout his career.
EICHER: Next we have a comment from listener Phil Wade. He disagrees with the doctor we quoted who said churches should not resume congregational singing right away.
AUDIO: I understand people have their opinions and experts differ and all. But I’m surprised whenever I hear people say we can’t resume normal life, or congregational singing, until we have a vaccine. I don’t think we are going to have a vaccine. And I feel this coronavirus pandemic has shown the limits of our medical knowledge and provoked the people of God to take a hard look at our fears.
DERRICK: Next, listener Anna Stroud called in from Asheville, North Carolina, with some love for one of our recent special episodes.
AUDIO: I absolutely loved Dr. Horton’s special edition where he updated listeners on the coronavirus and answered listener questions. It was super helpful for me. So I think y’all should definitely do that again.
EICHER: Well, Anna, we have some great news for you. We are going to do another special episode with Dr. Horton. Next week, in fact! Look for that to show up in your podcast feed on Thursday, God willing.
DERRICK: Yes, Ask Dr. Horton was a first for us: a stand-alone special episode. And another first happened this week. Kim Henderson’s four-part series about a grieving community in Mississippi was our first serial story.
And I think we all agree with listener Aaron Hoak, who tweeted that Kim “hit it out of the park” with that series. And a hat-tip to Paul Butler as well. He produced that series with Kim.
And as we said on yesterday’s program, next week we’ll release the full story with 10 minutes of bonus content in another special episode.
EICHER: Ok, our last call for today comes from a WORLD fan with a sense of humor. Let’s have a listen.
AUDIO: Hey there, WORLD. This is Jeff Palomino from Burke, Virginia. During the quarantine, I took advantage of the opportunity to call into the National Public Radio, or NPR, listener feedback line. I just wanted to share that call with you and the listeners today.
Brrrring! Brrrring! Brrr—
You have reached the NPR listener feedback… BEEP!
Oh, hello! NPR? Oh, hey. It’s Jeff Palomino from Burke, Virginia. I just want to say, NPR, congratulations! You’re just like a secular WORLD Radio!
You know what? Way back I used to say that I looked forward to the day when people would see Newsweek or some other big publication and say, “It’s like a secular version of WORLD.”
DERRICK: Jeff, thanks for your creativity and for sending us that. It’s a great way today’s listener feedback segment!
Remember, you can follow us on Twitter and email us anytime at email@example.com. We love to hear from you.
NICK EICHER: It takes a lot of people to put this program together each week. Thanks so much to our team:
Ryan Bomberger, Paul Butler, Janie B. Cheaney, Kent Covington, Kristen Flavin, Katie Gaultney, Kim Henderson, Anna Johansen, Leigh Jones, Onize Ohikere, Bonnie Pritchett, Mary Reichard, Sarah Schweinsberg, Les Sillars, Cal Thomas, and Steve West.
MEGAN BASHAM: Our audio engineers are Johnny Franklin and Carl Peetz. J.C. Derrick is managing editor, Marvin Olasky editor in chief.
And it’s you who make it all possible. You have our deepest gratitude!
Proverbs tells us the fear of the Lord leads to life, and whoever has it rests satisfied; he will not be visited by harm.
Have a great weekend.