Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for April 26, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is “As It Happens”.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Star of TV, legend of stand-up comedy, now guilty of sexual assault. One of the first women to come forward with allegations about Bill Cosby tells us how she feels about today's verdict.

JD: Murder, she wrote. Michelle McNamara spent years writing about the Golden State Killer before she died. Tonight, one of the people who helped finish her book reflects on the news that police have finally arrested a suspect.

CO: Governing bodies. New regulations for female athletes will ban those with naturally high testosterone from competition — and that has some people's blood boiling.

JD: Built to last, built at last. A new memorial to thousands of victims of lynchings opens in Alabama. And now that visitors are moving solemnly through it, we'll speak with the man behind it.

CO: Scott red-handed. When EPA head Scott Pruitt testified before the U.S. Congress today, representatives raised the stakes by raising questions about raises — and his answers raised eyebrows.

JD: And...rejoice, for the end is near. A Texas town prepares to hold an athletic event that's already something of a running joke: a point-five K race — I said point- five K — with a coffee and donut station at the halfway mark.

JD: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that figures every runner will have the same thought: not so far, so good.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Cosby guilty, testosterone athletes, Texas .5km race

Cosby guilty

Guest: Patricia Steuer

JD: Bill Cosby is going to prison. At the end of a high-stakes trial in Pennsylvania, Mr. Cosby was found guilty on three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand. Ms. Constand alleged the U.S. comedian drugged and sexually assaulted her 14 years ago. More than sixty women have accused Bill Cosby of sexual abuse. But Ms. Constand's was the only case to result in a criminal trial. Many of Mr. Cosby's accusers were at the court house today. Their reactions to the verdict were visceral, and emotional. Here is Lili Bernard.

SOUNDCLIP

LILI BERNARD: I feel like my faith in humanity is restored. This is a victory not just for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Not just with the victim in the case, Andrea Constand. Not just for the 62 of us publicly-known survivors of Bill Cosby's drug-facilitated sexual crimes against women. But it's also a victory for sexual assault survivors female and male. It's a victory for womanhood, and I thank the jury so much for positioning themselves on the right side of history. I just want to hug them. I just want to hug them.

JD: Gloria Allred represents Ms. Bernard and many other Bill Cosby accusers. Here is what she said outside the courthouse.

SOUNDCLIP

GLORIA ALLRED: It's been a very long journey. But this is a her-storic result. This was her story. Not his story — not history — but the story of her. The story of Aundrea Constand — the story of all of those who took that rests against a rich, powerful, famous man. Took the risk of being denigrated publicly, took the risk of being sued for what they said because he had the resources to do it. Took the risk of being shamed and blamed as the defense did in their final argument. Took those risks and they took the risks so that their truth could be known so that their truth could be believed. So Tom Mesereau, you tried, you failed, the personal attacks did not work. Bill Cosby, three words for you: guilty, guilty, guilty.

JD: In that press conference, Ms. Allred mentioned Bill Cosby's lead lawyer, Tom Mesereau. Here's how he reacted after the verdict.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM MESEREAU: We are very disappointed by the verdict. We don’t think Mr. Cosby is guilty of anything. And the fight is not over. Thank you.

REPORTER: Are you going to appeal, sir?

TM: Yes, yes, very strongly.

JD: That was Bill Cosby's defence attorney Tom Mesereau, confirming that his client will be appealing today's guilty verdict. Patricia Steuer was among the first women to come forward with allegations of sexual abuse by Bill Cosby. We reached her in Kings Beach, California.

CO: Ms. Steuer, when you learned the news that Bill Cosby had been found guilty today, how did you react?

PATRICIA STEUER: I couldn't quite believe it. I was stunned. I stood there in disbelief for a few moments. I was in a pharmacy picking up prescriptions with my husband, and he's the one who told me. And I threw my arms around him and I started to cry and he started to cry too.

CO: Your encounters with Bill Cosby were in 1979, is that right?

PS: I knew him between 78 and 80.

CO: What became of the allegations that you brought against him?

PS: I didn't bring any allegations against him. I told three people — including the man who is my husband — about what happened to me soon after it happened. But all three of them advised me not to come forward because they didn't think anyone would believe me.

CO: What did you tell them happened?

PS: I told them that I'd been drugged the first time I was a guest at Mr. Cosby's house and disrobed. And that's all I knew about what had happened that night other than I was very, very sick. When he woke me up and told me I had to leave his home. I didn't think I would ever hear from him again because he told me it was my fault. He told me that I had thrown up and passed out. And I believe him because he was a person of great reputation. But he did call me, and he did ask me to continue to be in contact with him about helping me with a singing career; I was a voice major in college. And so it was until a year-and-a-half later where he asked me to take pills, and I said well what would the pills do? And he said oh, they just relax you like a drink, and you can't come in and spend any time with me this evening talking about your career unless you take the pills. So I made a decision to take the pills not knowing what they were, but believing that they would just make me relax. And the next thing I knew I was waking up the next morning very sick. And I realized that someone had penetrated me while I was unconscious. So I confronted him, and he was very angry with me, and told me I was ungrateful, and threw me out of his suite. I've never heard from him again.

CO: Why did you become involved in the civil case said Andrea Constand brought against Bill Cosby in 2005?

PS: I didn't start out to be involved in the civil case. What happened was when Andrea Constand came forward and attempted to have him charged criminally, I realized I wasn't alone. For 25 years I thought I was the only woman he'd ever done this to. So when she came forward and tried to have him criminally charged, it was a huge thing for me. So my intention from the beginning was to testify in a criminal trial, but the district attorney in Pennsylvania at the time would not charge Mr. Cosby. So Andrea Constand had no choice but to file a civil suit against him. And I was still willing to testify because I wanted her to know that she wasn't alone. But Mr. Cosby didn't want us all to testify in court for good reason. He didn't want 13 Jane Does to testify. So he settled with Andrea. And at that moment, we were all effectively silent because there was no social media. We didn't know each other's names. There was no way to get in touch with one another. But that's how it ended.

CO: And then until there was, of course, the criminal case that went to trial for the first time last year and failed with a hung jury. But what's your sense of why the jury found him guilty in this trial?

PS: I suspect that the five fellow survivors or sister survivors who are allowed to testify about prior bad acts by Mr. Cosby I'm sure that made a difference this time. I suspect that Mr. Mesereau his defence attorneys very aggressive defence of Mr. Cosby in which he discredited Andrea and anyone else who spoke on her behalf was probably over played. It was too heavy-handed for the people who were in the jury. And then there's the #MeToo movement, which has shaped the culture and the human beings who live in the culture, even though the judge admonished the jury not to allow what was happening culturally to alter their deliberations about this particular case. They’re human beings, so they have been changed as a result of the culture being changed.

CO: It's interesting the jury was seven men and five women. They did have more evidence to work with because of the five women who were allowed to be witnesses in this trial. But it's also much speculated that the women themselves were more believable since the #MeToo campaign that people just think well yeah, now I've heard this. It's quite possible this happened do you think that's what we're talking about?

PS: I think so. I think that if five women who were carefully chosen for a large group of survivors because their stories were closest to what Andrea Constand said happened to her, the jury had to take that into account. None of us knew each other. We had no way of coordinating stories. So the jury would have to take that into account.

CO: What do you think also of Andrea Constand herself? What strengths did she bring to this case as a person — as you observed how she comported herself during this trial?

PS: I think she's someone of great equanimity, and she is courageous, and she's inspiring. She's persevered about this when other people would have given up a long time ago. And I have had two phone conversations with her in which we have never spoken about what happened to each of us. We have just thanked each other for being in each other's lives. I thanked her for coming forward in the first place, and she thanked me for being one of the Jane Does. My sense of her is that her heart is huge, that she's a very quiet and unassuming person, and that this was never about notoriety or fame or any of those things. This was about justice, whatever that justice was going to be.

CO: When this is all over, and possibly it has another chapter because there seems to be there's going to be an appeal. Are you looking forward to someday meeting Andrea Constand, sitting down with her, and having a conversation?

PS: I'm very much looking forward to meeting her. We're both deeply spiritual people, and we've relied on that spirituality to get us through this. I would very much look forward to meeting her, and embracing her because I consider her my sister in this.

CO: Ms. Steuer, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PS: You're very welcome, Carol. Thank you for inviting me to be on.

JD: Patricia Steuer is one of the first women to come forward with allegations of sexual abuse by Bill Cosby. We reached Ms. Steuer today in Kings Beach, California.

[Music: Sad ambient]

Testosterone athletes

Guest: Katrina Karkazis

JD: They're the highest of high-performing athletes. But according to the governing body of international athletics, some female runners are too good naturally. Today, the IAAF announced that it plans to ban some female athletes from competing because of high testosterone levels. That ruling is expected to disqualify South African 800-metre Olympic champion Caster Semenya, who has been singled out in the past for having naturally high levels of testosterone. Katrina Karkazis is a Stanford bioethicist. She has challenged testosterone limits in sports. We reached her in New London, Connecticut.

Ms. Karkazis, what's your reaction to this ruling by the IAAF?

KATRINA KARKAZIS: I'm really disappointed by it. I think it discriminates further against women athletes with no scientific basis behind it. And what we need to do now is challenge it so that it doesn't harm women.

CO: But the association says it's just trying to create they say a level playing field for all female athletes. And they say that they have evidence that testosterone is giving some female athletes a performance advantage. Is that not the case?

KK: It's not the case. I've seen that evidence, and there's a mismatch even between their own evidence from the regulation. Just to give you one quick example, they show that the highest ostensible performance advantages in hammer throw and pole vault, but they're not regulating those events. And they're also including one event for which they had no evidence that it provided performance advantage.

CO: What exactly are they referring to? I mean this is the women who have a high level of blood testosterone is what they're pursuing. They're not saying that these women have done anything illegal or that they're taking substances that are banned. They're just saying it would appear to be there are women who have high levels of testosterone. So what would cause that?

KK: So there are a lot of things that can cause higher than typical testosterone levels. Here what they've done is specifically target women with intersex traits. And although those women have been targeted in the past, this is the most explicit and transparent that they've ever been that that's actually with these regulations will affect.

CO: What are intersex traits?

KK: Intersex traits are conditions where people have a combination of male-typical and female-typical physiologies and biologies.

CO: And so this is their biology, this is how they're born. So if it's an advantage in sports, it's just one of the physical advantages that they have. Someone else might have other physical advantages, right?

KK: That's absolutely correct. Is it fair to say that they have an advantage, and if they do, is that advantage unfair? You’re raising other advantages that people might have. So to single out one physiological trait above all others when their evidence doesn't support it amounts to discrimination against particular women.

CO: It's interesting that they say that they want to have competitions that are dictated by — what they say — “talent, dedication, and hard work, rather than other contributing factors.” And so they cite these high levels of testosterone in some women as giving them this advantage, and they don't want that. They think it should all be, again, this level playing field where it's just hard work and dedication that gets you there.

KK: Well, the idea that women with higher levels of testosterone are not working hard or are not dedicated is an utter fallacy. So is the idea of a level playing field — there is no such thing. They’re working just as hard as everyone else. So it leaves the impression that testosterone is some jet fuel for these women athletes — when no woman athlete is outperforming other women at the kind of way that men typically perform over women in athletic events.

CO: And why do you think that they've limited this new rule about testosterone to events from well anything at 400 metres to a mile and nothing below that? Why would they limit it to only those activities those races?

KK: Yeah, I think there's two reasons. I think one is that this is a regulation that specifically targets Caster Semenya, and that's how we understand the inclusion of the 1,500 metre, which is a race she runs. And one for which they don't have evidence of any performance difference. I also think it was a way to circumvent returning to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to have their evidence more critically evaluated.

CO: And you refer to Caster Semenya, and she's the South African runner — probably the most high-profile athlete who has been accused of getting an unfair advantage from her testosterone levels, is that right?

KK: It is. And I don't think it's a coincidence that this regulation was released right after her wins in the 800 metre and the 1,500 metre at the Commonwealth Games just a while ago.

CO: They are saying that there is statistically about 7 in every 1,000 elite female athletes who have elevated testosterone levels — that's what the IAAF is saying. And so though it seems to be limited to Caster Semenya, this rule may affect other women. So what does it mean if you do have these elevated testosterone levels, what does it mean for those athletes? What do they have to do?

KK: Well, if you want to continue competing in your event, which I think most athletes would want that remain in their own event. They have to lower it, and they have to do that via drugs or surgery, for which there are short and long-term health effects depending upon how it's done. And then I think what they do in order to make it look like they're not banning any one is to give a series of false options for women. And by that I mean they said they can compete with men. That they can compete in a non-existing intersex category. That they can change events, or they can quit. And all of those things effectively crush the career of a woman who is competing at the international level.

CO: So the option is basically either you take drugs, or you compete as a man?

KK: Well, I think there's actually a big question to be raised about whether or not they actually could compete in the male category, because technically you have to be legally male and, of course, these women aren't. But I also think it is degrading and deeply insensitive to suggest that to someone who their whole life has been a girl and a woman and identifies as such today.

CO: All right, it's extraordinary. We will be following the story, Ms. Karkazis. And I appreciate talking to you. Thank you.

KK: Thank you so much.

JD: Katrina Karkazis is a bioethicist. We reached her in New London, Connecticut.

[Music: World music]

Texas .5km race

Guest: Jay Milton

JD: Most athletic endeavours are about pushing yourself to the limit. But the thing about doing that is: it's hard. I mean, your limit — that's pretty much the most you can do, as I understand it. So where are the events that let you just kind of gently nudge yourself to somewhere nowhere near your limit? Well, one is in Boerne, Texas, on May 5th. The organizers call it "the running event for the rest of us". It's not a 10-K, or a 5-K. It's a point-5-K. It should take no more than a very manageable 10 minutes to complete. And that's if you stop for the thoughtfully provided coffee, beer, and donuts. Jay Milton is one of the organizers of the run. We spoke to him from Boerne, Texas.

CO: Jay, why did you think that a run for underachievers might have an appeal?

JAY MILTON: Because I'm an underachiever myself, and so are my friends. And we just thought this would be a really fun, funny way to raise money for a good organization.

CO: And have you watched all these other overachievers in their runs and had your own thoughts about them?

JM: Exactly, right. You know it’s probably almost sort of a tinge of jealousy. But you know like the tag line for our event is “The running event for the rest of us.” You know we look at those people running five Ks, and we want run a… no, actually we probably don’t. So the point-5K is perfect distance.

CO: Of course, you see those people, they're up at the crack of dawn, they're down there in the bad weather and the rain, they’re wearing of their little skimpy things, and stretching, and looking so good. So how different is the look for your event?

JM: The whole event itself is really designed to sort of lampoon the typical 5K, right? So we have, for example, a fitness instructor is going to be there at the beginning, and he's going to you know walk us through stretching exercises and that sort of thing. And then down the path, we've got mile markers, of course, they're not mile markers there, they’re you .15K mark. We've got a coffee and donut station about halfway through in case people feel like they need to load up on carbs, so that they can make it the full way through. We have a medical tent. You know just kind of all of the same things that a 5K does, but with a funny spin on them.

CO: You have a designated smoking area?

JM: We do! Yeah, that's right. I tell you the most fun part of this event for me personally has been getting together with my friends, who are helping me pull this off. And we just sit there, and we just crack each other up with all of these great ideas about how we could just do the stupidest things.

CO: Okay, so while people are getting stretched and pumped for this, they're having a beer I understand?

JM: Yes, we are really fortunate here in Boerne, Texas, which, by the way, I looked this up, it's 7,956 kilometres from Redding. You know for your listeners that needed some sort of you know kind of idea of where of where Boerne, Texas is. But we're very fortunate that we have two really community-minded brew pubs here in town where they brew their own beer, and they’re family-owned and run. And when I kind of pitched the idea to them, they were immediately like oh, that sounds great, let's do it! And they both volunteered to give the participants a pint of beer at the start and then a pint of beer at the end.

CO: I understand that you don't even have to actually run or walk this half-kilometre; you can get a VIP pass?

JM: Right, right, if you register as a VIP — which is an additional 25 dollars — then you don't have to run the event at all. You get your free beer at both brewpubs, and then we have the official VIP shuttle bus — which is a 1963 VW Microbus that's been restored — and that's going to shuttle the VIP from the 500 yards from you know from one brewpub to the next. And the VIPs get a larger metal than everybody else because you know they're more important, so they should get more recognition.

CO: Why do you have a medical tent?

JM: Five hundred yards is nothing to laugh at. We just don't want to take any chances. And you know we're having it near the coffee and donut station just in case. You know you just don't know when maybe maybe somebody has a few too many donuts, and you know start to have some sort of a sugar reaction or something like that. So we just want to be careful.

CO: Now there are takeaways because there always has to be a bumper sticker when you’ve had a success like doing a run. So what do we get for being in the half-K?

JM: Yeah, well you know those kind of oval-looking stickers that you see on the back of people's rear windshield you know that might say you know 26k, right? Like for somebody that's actually run a marathon. You know we're creating that same sort of pretentious Euro-style sticker that says zero-point-five-K. And you don't just let everybody brag to all of their friends, and anybody who happens to be driving behind them that you know that this is a real athlete driving that car. Of course, everybody gets a participation medal too, right? Because we want all of our participants to feel good about themselves at the end of the race — everybody's a winner in this race. Everybody's a winner.

CO: What's the charity?

JM: The charity is a great organization here in Boerne called Blessings in a Backpack. What they do is they bring small bags of food to our local schools, and then when the kids are maybe at lunch or they're out for recess, the teacher will basically tuck a bag of food into their backpack on Friday afternoon, so that the kids have something to eat over the weekend. These are typically kids that are getting free lunches and breakfasts at school during the week, but may go hungry over the weekend. So they’re are very small, 100 per cent volunteer organization. You know they don't have a great deal of money, and they sort of self-fund.

CO: Well, a good cause. And are you going to be taking part in this run?

JM: I'm going to try. We might have to you know put a few additional coffee and donut stations along the way if I was going to run, so we'll have to see.

CO: You could always get that shuttle bus.

JM: So that's a really good idea. Maybe I'll just do that.

CO: Jay, thanks. It's good to talk to you.

JM: Yeah, you too. Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

JD: Jay Milton is one of the organizers of the upcoming point-5 kilometre run. We reached him in Boerne, Texas, which in 7,900 kilometres from Reading. And there’s more on this on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Part two: Golden State Killer suspect, lynching memorial

Golden State Killer suspect

Guest: Bill Jensen

JD: After 40 years, police say they have finally figured out who the "Golden State Killer" is. Yesterday, police announced they had arrested a suspect. He is believed to have spent 10 years raping and murdering people across California in the '70s and the '80s. The "Golden State Killer" moniker was coined by crime writer Michelle McNamara. She began investigating the cold case in 2007. She was writing a book about it when she died in 2016. Bill Jensen is the investigative journalist who helped finish the book. We reached Mr. Jensen in New York City.

CO: Bill, How does it feel hearing that the suspected Golden State Killer has been arrested?

BILL JENSEN: It was surreal because there was no ramp up to it. It was very quick.

CO: This moment for you must be quite external. How do you think Michelle McNamara, who began this, her obsession to find out about this was I guess what led them to reinvestigate. How do you think she would feel today if she knew?

BJ: You know today, I think it would be different than yesterday. I think yesterday there were the elation there, and today, she would be now going through all of her notes, trying to see what sort of crimes match up, and what makes sense and what doesn't. And you know there was so much evidence in this case, and she had so many different documents that I think she would have been digging into her archives now and just sort of piecing things together. I myself would have been looking and trying to build a timeline for forward because you know he very well might have done more than just these 12 murders and 50 rapes. And I would like to be looking in to — and that's what we're doing right now is looking into any other cold cases from around that time period of where he was.

CO: Right. So you mentioned this: 12 murders, 45 rapes at least, ransacking homes, break-and-entry, all kinds of horrible things over the period of time in the ‘70s and ‘80s. What do we know about the man who has now been arrested?

BJ: His name is Joseph DeAngelo, and he was a regular guy. He was an upstanding member of the community. He had a family. He had a wife. He lived in the same home for 30 years. And we knew that this guy was going to be part of a community. We didn't think he was going to be a guy living in a cabin. We didn't think he was some frothing animal. This was not something that was like that. And none of the people that we talked to, or the victims of sexual assaults that we talked to had said that you know this was going to be somebody that is not outside of society. But you know when the lights go down, that's when he starts to play, and his true colours out. And that's what happened. And the people of Citrus Heights — where he's from, and where he lived in a house just like everybody else — are learning now that they were living next door to a monster.

CO: What do you make of the fact that he is a former police officer?

BJ: That was a theory that we all had — one of them that he was a police officer. The bigger theory was that he tried to be a police officer and failed, which actually kind of came true too. You know we thought maybe he was somebody that really did like military and law enforcement, but couldn't quite make it. It turns out that he was a police officer, and he was accused of shoplifting two particular items that were interesting: dog repellent and a hammer and was dismissed. And he didn't fight it — he didn't fight the charge, which should have sent up a red flag.

CO: Why was it so difficult do you think to find someone who was on such a crime spree?

BJ: You know while you are going on this crime spree, particularly in Sacramento, where you have these police patrols out. We always knew that he had a scanner because whenever they would have patrols in one area of Sacramento, he would hit another area. He knew where the police were. But you know he was out there a lot of nights, you know possibly every night. And he was run into and encountered. We have stories of him running, and we were able to get a little bit of what he might have looked like without the mask on. And you know with all of the scientific evidence that was there it was just a matter of getting you know the DNA and matching the DNA up into the right databases.

CO: So many of his victims actually saw him, but obviously were not able to identify him. He broke into the houses of women who are there, quite often with their children. He tied them up, he raped them, he killed people who might be witnesses. It’s just extraordinary the things that he that he is alleged to have committed. So how did the police finally crack the case?

BJ: It was through DNA. That was really all that they would say. I have a feeling it might have been through familial DNA, which means that they put it into a database and found you know found not a not an exact match but somebody that was close to him, an uncle, a son, a brother, something along those lines that was in the database, and then they narrowed it down to him. You know so it was a matter of just constantly entering the DNA profile into whatever database that you could find, and then taking it from there.

CO: And what effect do you think Michelle's work had on the fact that this case is now solved?

BJ: I think it had a big effect. Nobody knew of this case you know outside of Sacramento. And you know a couple people you know in Irvine and Santa Barbara. You know she was the one, and it's sad because it really was her death that promoted the case into really popular consciousness. She was the one that named them she named in the Golden State Killer because she felt that the other name that he had was a mouthful. So instead of original “Nightstalker East Area Rapist” you know let's give him one name that really encapsulates everything that he was doing. And on top of that, you know when she passed, everybody learned about this woman who was a wife of a comedian, and she was working on a book about the Golden State Killer. OK, who is that? And when you have something like that, and you have national news about a guy that killed 12 people and raped 50, that brings upon pressure on to law enforcement. Law enforcement might say you know we should devote more energy into this case.

CO: What do you think Michelle McNamara would say if she could be face-to-face with the alleged Golden State Killer?

BJ: Yeah, I have a feeling she was so good at not taking people off guard, but really just sort of disarming them, and then getting them to feel comfortable that I think that she would just start a conversation with him first about whatever, and then you know lead him down the path, and get him to tell things that he might not normally tell somebody else. That's what would happen.

CO: Well, Bill, we will leave it there. And thank you for telling us the story.

BK: Okay, thank you so much.

JD: Bill Jensen is an investigative journalist. We reached him in New York City. Michelle McNamara's book "I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer" was published in February. And we've posted more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Scott Pruitt

JD: Scott Pruitt has a lot to answer for. So much, in fact, that the lawmakers questioning him in Congress today kept running out of time before they could ask all their questions. Mr. Pruitt is the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As you may have heard, he has been followed by a series of spending scandals over the last few months. In one instance, Mr. Pruitt has been accused of authorizing large raises for two aides. Here he is answering questions on that subject from Representative Paul Tonko.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL TONKO: It came out that two EPA employees who came with you to Washington from Oklahoma were given significant raises over the White House's objection. When you were interviewed by Ed Henry on Fox News, you claim to have been unaware of those raises. At the time, Ed Henry asked you whether you intentionally went around the White House, or whether you simply had no idea what your staff was up to? The EPA Inspector General is looking into those races, and last week the I.G. released preliminary information showing that the forms to grant the raises were signed by your chief of staff Mr. Ryan Jackson, who wrote that he was signing on your behalf. This is your opportunity to set the record straight. Did you, administrator, authorize Mr. Jackson to sign those documents for you?

SCOTT PRUITT: Congressman, those were delegated to Mr. Jackson. And the Inspector General did reference that in his management alert.

PT: So you did authorize him then to sign them?

SP: That decision was made by…

PT: Yes or no? Did you authorize him?

SP: There were delegations given to him with that authority.

PT: So that's a yes?

SP: The Inspector General recognized that, Congressman.

PT: So you authorized Mr. Jackson to sign those documents for you. In internal emails, Sarah Greenwald — one of the aides who received a substantial raise — stated that you were aware of and supported the raises. Was that true?

SP: I think with respect to the raises…

PT: Was that true? I have five minutes, so I have to move along.

SP: I was not aware of the amount.

PT: Not of the amount. Were you aware of the raises?

SP: I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware of the bypassing or the PPO process not being respected.

PT: Well, then I'm concerned that you have no idea of what is going on in your name that your agency, especially on an issue already under I.G. investigation.

JD: In a separate case, lawmakers sharply questioned the installation of a 43-thousand-dollar secure phone booth in Mr. Pruitt’s office. Mr. Pruitt said he needed the booth to make secure calls, but that he didn't know it would cost that much. But Representative Peter Welch questioned whether he really needed that booth at all.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER WELCH: Let me ask you just about this phone booth, because it's a metaphor. Are you aware that at the EPA headquarters, there are two secure facilities where private phone calls could be secure?

SP: And again, I didn't request the skiff. I requested a secure communication that was not accessible to my office.

PW: I understand that, but you're the boss. So you tell your folks that you want a secure way of communicating — reasonable request — they're going to accommodate it. The boss is the one who has to make certain that it's a reasonable imposition on taxpayers. Do you disagree with that?

SP: In this instance, the process failed. As I indicated in my opening statement, those prices will be changed going forward.

PW: Here's the question that I think a lot of people would ask — Republican or Democrat. How can I make a secure phone call? And the answer would be well, Mr. Pruitt, there happens to be two places in this building right close to your office where you can do that.

SP: Not right close to my office.

PW: Pardon me?

SP: They're not right close to my office.

PW: Well, how often do you have to use your secret phone booth?

SP: It's for confidential communications, and it's rare.

PW: OK. So on those rare occasions, is it too much to ask you to walk whatever distance it takes for you to get to that secure line?

SP: I guess it depends on the nature of the call, and how urgent the call is.

PW: But the point is that you have two locations that you can go to when you have to make those rare secure phone calls. This is taxpayer money.

JD: That was EPA administrator Scott Pruitt testifying before Congress, earlier today.

[Music: Ambient]

Listener Response: Uranus farts

[sc]

CO: We'll clear this up: Uranus or Uranus.

PATRICK IRWIN: Well, we tend to call Uranus, because Uranus sounds a bit too rude.

JD: A brief clip from Carol's interview with Patrick Irwin, a professor of planetary physics at Oxford University. Professor Irwin is the lead author of a new study that addresses the question of what Uranus might smell like. Short answer: bad. Slightly longer answer: bad, like hydrogen sulfide has an odour similar to that of human flatulence. Or that's what we said, anyway. And so, honestly, did most of the headlines. USA Today: "Uranus smells like farts, rotten eggs, Oxford scientists declare". Huffington Post: "Uranus is Actually A Giant Ball of Farts Floating in Space, Study Finds". Science and technology website Inverse.com: "Uranus is Literally a Fart Factory And It Would Absolutely Kill You". Do I sound defensive? Yes, I do. You're right: I'm a little sensitive right now. It's just that... well, we got this email from Chauncey Hare, a chemical engineer from San Francisco. And Chauncey writes: "Flatus is a decomposition product of carbon-based compounds such as carbohydrates in the bowel. There is essentially little or no sulfur in foods that could end up as hydrogen sulfide. What you smell in flatulence are gaseous by-products of fermentation of carbohydrates. If sulfur was present in food, it would likely end up as a sulfur/carbon compound that would smell like the odorant added to natural gas, a mercaptan. Mercaptans do come close to the odor of flatus..." " ... You may have noticed that leaking gas (containing mercaptan) can come close to the smell of what you want to call a 'fart'. Good luck on better fact-checking next time." Well, thank you for writing, Chauncey. As you can imagine, your analysis was tough to digest. But we're grateful for it anyway. Because we were wrong about the gas — and you wouldn't let it pass.

[Music: Ambient]

Lynching memorial

Guest: Bryan Stevenson

JD: In Montgomery, Alabama, for the first time, names like Fred Rochelle, David Walker, and Emmett Till — and some 4-thousand others — have been etched into steel. They are all a part of a memorial to victims of lynchings across the United States between 1877 and 1950.The memorial and a museum open for the first time this week. It was the brainchild of Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson. We reached Mr. Stevenson in Montgomery.

CO: Mr. Stevenson, describe for us if you would what visitors see as they walk toward this memorial?

BRYAN STEVENSON: Well, when you enter our memorial, you'll first see a sculpture on slavery. In the United States, we, of course, enslaved millions of black people. And we haven't really acknowledged that history. We haven't talked about it. And for a lot of people, it will be the first time they've ever seen a slavery sculpture. So as you walk past the sculpture, you walk up to a square, where there are hundreds of steel six-foot monuments. And they began at eye level. You walk through them. And then when you get to the next quarter, they begin to rise. And then in the third quarter, they are suspended above you. And they sort of haunt you as you walk down this path where we tell the stories of black people who were who were lynched.

CO: So is there something there for each person whom you know was lynched? Is there some recognition of each individual?

BS: Yes, we've documented over 4,300 victims of racial terror lynchings. And each of their names are engraved on these monuments, which correspond to particular counties — and so all of the lynching victims from a particular county will have their name engraved and the date of the lynching on the monument.

CO: And the story also of what happened, how they came to be lynched?

BS: Yes, we don't present all of the stories in the memorial. But at our museum, visitors will have the opportunity to learn about each of these people.

CO: So what you're pointing out when you say from enslavement to mass incarceration — this arc — is that it's not over. There is what we're seeing now with the numbers of African-Americans in the prison system. You're trying to show this is a continuum, is that right?

BS: That's right. I think slavery has a legacy. I think the great evil of American slavery wasn't involuntary servitude and forced labour, but it was rather the narrative of racial difference — the idea that black people are not the same as white people, are not as good as white people, not fully evolved not fully human. That ideology of white supremacy which made slavery permissible in my judgment hasn't been addressed. Our amendment ending slavery only ends involuntary servitude and forced labour. And as a result, I don't think slavery ends in 1865. I think it evolves. It's what explains this era of terrorism that goes unaddressed. This era of lawlessness that goes unaddressed.

CO: It would seem that I don’t know when you began to put this museum memorial together, and when it was conceived. But we are certainly in a time when there isn't a day or a week that goes by without some other very open discussion about white supremacy in the United States and elsewhere — the very ideas you're discussing here. We saw as early as last weekend in Georgia a public neo-Nazi rally featuring a flaming swastika. What can your museum and memorial tell us about why that exists now?

BS: Well, when I go to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, I'm moved by the experience. And at the end of the experience, I'm motivated to say — like many others — never again. With a consciousness about what happened, we commit ourselves to fighting against that kind of brutal genocide and bigotry. And the problem is that in America, we have not created cultural institutions. We have not created spaces that motivate people to make the commitment of never again. We don't talk about slavery. We haven’t talked about lynching. We haven't talked about segregation in a way that provokes that response. So my hope is that by creating spaces that are unflinching, that are honest, that are difficult, we can motivate a generation of people to say never again. And when that happens, it becomes less acceptable for people to celebrate white supremacy, for people to celebrate bigotry.

CO: How will you encourage people to go to see this and to take in what you're describing, and understand this, given that the people you need to confront this perhaps would not be interested in knowing?

BS: Well, I actually think that when you create something that has power and meaning, people will respond in ways that are that are not always predictable. I'm actually hopeful that a lot of people will come. We put up markers about slavery in Montgomery four years ago. This was a city that had 59 markers and monuments to the Confederacy. And early on, didn't have a about slavery. And there was a lot of pushback. There was a lot of resistance. But today, I see young white families standing around those markers. I see people of all races in those spaces. I think you have to believe things you haven't seen. And I just don't believe we can accomplish the kind of justice or equality we seek if we don't create the spaces that are necessary to achieve this kind of reckoning — this kind of truth-telling. So I'm encouraged actually. We've had thousands of people sign up to be with us this week. Some are more skeptical than others, but all, I hope, will be moved and motivated to advance this process of truth and reconciliation, which I believe is desperately needed in our nation. We're still haunted by this legacy. We're still easily provoked. A lot of tension, a lot of conflict, and we're not going to get what we're trying to go until we have the courage to face the past.

CO: Well, it's profoundly interesting what you're describing, Mr. Stevenson. And I hope a lot of people will get to see it. Thank you for speaking with us.

BS: My pleasure.

JD: Bryan Stevenson is the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative. We reached him in Montgomery, Alabama. And we have more on this on our website.

Part three: Prentice Flight: Transportation Safety Board, penis-scrotum transplant

Trans Mountain

JD: For months now, we've been following the dispute between Alberta and British Columbia over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The project would see more oil tankers on the West Coast shipping bitumen to foreign markets. The project has federal government approval. But the BC government won't approve it, because of concerns about the potential of a major spill. This morning, BC Premier John Horgan's government filed a reference case in the province's Court of Appeal. It asks if the provincial government can bring in new regulations — including a permit system — on the transport of heavy oil. Here is BC Attorney General David Eby speaking at a news conference today.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID EBY: Today, British Columbia is taking steps within the law to protect the health of its people, its environment, its economy, and its communities. That's the heart of our concern. Our actions are aimed at seeking certainty over our rights and obligations to control substances coming into the province that could potentially cause devastating environmental and economic harm if they're spilled. The substances we are talking about include heavy oil and heavy oil products sometimes called dilbit. We believe British Columbia has legal authority to regulate the movement of such substances through the province by permit. Others disagree. This is a question that deserves an answer and certainty. And that is why we are taking it to the highest court in B.C. the highest court to which we can refer a question of this nature.

JD: That was BC's Attorney General David Eby, speaking earlier today. During that news conference, Vancouver Sun reporter Rob Shaw had a question for Premier Horgan.

SOUNDCLIP

ROB SHAW: I asked your staff for a technical explanation of how Alberta’s export permanent is unconstitutional, but BC’s proposed import permit is not? But politically, how are you going to explain that to the public and to Rachel Notley when she will probably raise that issue?

JOHN HORGAN: Rachel Notley is a lawyer, so I don't think I'll have to spend too much time explaining to her the difference between environmental protection and trade. Environmental protection is an area greyness within our constitution because it wasn't contemplated in 1867, and not a lot of jurisprudence has been put forward since then to confirm where a jurisdiction lies. You can look at a whole host of rulings that David and technical staff could give you briefings on. The question of trade within Canada was reconfirmed with the Comeau case just a few days ago. And punishing another jurisdiction is not on according to the courts. And I would suggest that the government of Alberta knew that when they tabled their legislation. What we're doing is we heard loudly from the province of Alberta that they didn't believe we had the jurisdiction to proceed with amendments to the Environmental Management Act. Rather than implement the legislation and then pick a fight, we're gonna go and test that at a court of law. And I think that's the responsible thing to do.

JD: That was BC Premier John Horgan, speaking at a news conference earlier today.

[Music: Electric organ]

Prentice flight: Transportation Safety Board

Guest: Kathy Fox

JD: They think the pilot might have become disoriented, but they'll never know for sure. That's the conclusion of the Transportation Safety Board's investigation into the plane crash that killed former Alberta Premier Jim Prentice. The plane came down outside Kelowna in October 2016, all four people on board were killed. TSB investigators have been trying to piece together what happened ever since. But the plane wasn't equipped with a black box recorder, and without that, the investigators say they just cannot be certain. Kathy Fox is the Chair of the Transportation Safety Board. We reached her in Calgary.

CO: Ms. Fox, as you know, the families of these four men have wanted to know what happened in that crash. What do you say to them today?

KATHY FOX: It's always a very difficult day for the families when we release our final report. And this one I think is even more difficult because due to the lack of recorders on the aircraft, we're unable to tell them with certainty what happened. We can give them a plausible scenario, but we'll never know for sure if that's what actually happened.

CO: There are a few things that you have cited as contributing factors. That it might be that the pilot had been disoriented. Can you tell us about that?

KF: Yes, during the takeoff, on radar, the aircraft was observed to be climbing at different rates of climb from as low as 600 feet-per-minute to as high as 6,000 feet-per-minute. And within about three minutes after takeoff, the aircraft was observed to be in a tight right turn, descending until it crashed with terrain. We believe that what might have happened the pilot — although very experienced — did not have recent night flying experience, and did not have a lot of recent instrument flying experience. And when you're flying in those conditions at night, in cloud, the pilot has to rely on his instruments. And because of the acceleration forces and the turning forces that the pilot experienced, we believe that he may have become spatially disoriented, which can cause a pilot to actually push the nose of the aircraft down to enter descent and even turn in the thought that he’s actually making the wings level. So it can exacerbate the situation and lead to a loss of control.

CO: And what would have been going on inside the plane? Can you speculate that far as to what will be going on at that point?

KF: Well, I can't speculate. But what I can say from normal operational experience, immediately after takeoff is a very busy time, especially for a pilot who is on his own — who's flying alone. He has to climb the aircraft, he's got to raise the landing gear, raise the flaps, he's got to navigate to the first point that he's been cleared to by air traffic control, he's got a contact air traffic control. So it's a very busy time. And when you add the fact that he's flying alone, he's got a high workload, he's flying in conditions that he hasn't got a lot of recent experience, and he's much more susceptible to have these very strong physical sensations that can suggest that he's either tumbling or spinning, and that if he doesn't trust his instruments, he can actually end up putting the aircraft into a dive.

CO: How long had he been in the air before it crashed?

KF: About three minutes.

CO: And again, you’ve said that — and people expected this to be the conclusion — that without the black boxes — without a flight recorder — you can't know. What could you know? What would some kind of flight recorder be able to tell you about that crash if it had been there?

KF: Well, a flight recorder — depending on what is being recorded — can give you things like speed, heading, some of them can tell you what the aircraft instruments are saying, what the systems are doing, how much power is being applied to the engine. And if we'd had audio recordings — even though the pilot was alone — we can hear alarms that may be going off in the cockpit. We can hear breathing if the pilot has any kind of distress. In this case, we were able to eliminate some things. For example, we know the engines were developing power prior to impact. We know the aircraft didn't break up in flight. But the damage to the aircraft as a result of the very violent impact meant that all of the instruments were destroyed. And so we had very limited information, and we don't know if some abnormal event happened before the loss of control.

CO: But you don't believe it was equipment failure?

KF: At this point, based on the last transmission that the pilot made to air traffic control, there was no sense of urgency in the pilot's voice. There was no sense of malaise. And within seconds after that, he lost control. And it may be difficult to understand, but as human beings, were wired to walk operate on the ground, and when you're in an airplane, and you're subjected to all these physical forces, and you have no visual references, and it may even been as simple as turning his head to reach down and turn on the autopilot. That can induce this feeling of vertigo, and is very strong, and can cause a pilot to react inappropriately. And that's what we believe is the most likely, plausible scenario in this case, particularly given that he didn't have recent night flying experience. In fact, he hadn't done the minimum required takeoffs and landings within the last six months that are required to carry passengers at night by Transport Canada.

CO: So the families — you just said at the beginning — it's very difficult when you can't tell them what happened, and so they can't ever really learn about the last moments of their loved ones, what was going on, if they were aware of it, were they afraid, were they panicking. They will never know those things. The families often want to know what will come of this, what will change, is it possible that these deaths will lead to some new regulations or some ways to help prevent this from happening again. Are there things you can suggest in that regard?

KF: Absolutely. The first thing, and we are recommending, and we've recommended this previously is the mandatory installation of lightweight flight recording systems that provide digital flight data, voice and video, and can really help to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to an accident. And we're recommending that Transport Canada require that for all commercial aircraft and private business operators that aren't currently required to carry these systems. And I might add that if you compare the level of detail in this investigation with what we were able to achieve in another high-profile accident, which happened a few months before this accident, and we released that report earlier this year. That aircraft had a lightweight flight recorder, even though it wasn't required by regulation. And we were able to determine a very definite sequence of events, and identify what were the factors that led to that tragedy.

CO: We'll leave it there. I appreciate your time, Ms. Fox. Thank you.

KF: Thank you very much.

JD: Kathy Fox is the Chair of the Transportation Safety Board. We reached her in Calgary. This morning, she presented the conclusions of the board's investigation into the 2016 plane crash that took the lives of four people, including former Alberta Premier Jim Prentice. When news of the crash broke that day, we reached out to Mr. Prentice's friend and former federal cabinet colleague James Moore. Here's some of what Mr. Moore had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES MOORE: I'm sorry for Canada's loss, and I'm sorry for the hurt that must be being felt by his amazing wife Karen and his kids. So it's been a tough day.It will be a tough little while here for sure.

CO: What went through your mind when you heard the news today?

JM: Damn! You know, just Damn — just the magnitude of the loss of losing just a good guy. We was a good man, a good friend. You know I think the best compliment I can pay to Jim probably I mean there's two. One is his decision to go back into politics. You know, he is elected in ’04. He left in 2010. He served as: Industry Minister, Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Environment Minister, tough portfolios. He was chair of Cabinet committee when he left Parliament. Stephen Harper gave a send-off to him, and he said you know that Jim Prentice was the COO — the Chief Operating Officer — of the government of Canada because he was chair of the most powerful cabinet committee and all that. He had a lot on his plate. Then he left politics, he went to the private sector, he was chair of CIBC. He had a great private sector career. He did very well for himself, and he earned it all. And then he decided to go back into politics. And it wasn't just an ego-trip. You know Alberta was really hurt, they're headed down towards 40 dollar oil, and people from Alberta said we need somebody who is credible, and strong, and tough, and impressive — who can pull the party, and more importantly pull the province out of the ditch. And he gave everything up, and he went back to Alberta. And he was premier for a year, ran in the election, obviously it didn't go well. That happens in politics. But his decision to go back, and to move away from a very successful private sector career and expose himself to the stuff that you get in public life tells you frankly it wasn't an ego-trip. He genuinely was a good man, who had a good heart, who loved his province, and thought he had something to offer. He answered the call, and he offered himself a public service.

JD: From October of 2016, that was former federal cabinet minister James Moore remembering his friend and former Alberta Premier, Jim Prentice. The Transportation Safety Board released its report today on the plane crash that took the lives of Mr. Prentice and three others.

[Music: Ambient]

Trump on Fox

JD: It was home turf. The softest of softball interviews, and yet still, in an appearance on "Fox and Friends" this morning, U.S. President Donald Trump managed to one: contradict himself on a matter being examined by federal prosecutors; and two: come off looking like an insensitive husband. The contradiction had to do with a payment that his lawyer Michael Cohen made to porn star Stormy Daniels prior to the election. Last month on Air Force One, he was asked if he knew anything about that payment. He answered with one word: "No." Today, on "Fox and Friends", this slipped out:

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Michael would represent me and represent me on some things. He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal. He represented me, and you know from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong.

JD: Ayeee! That was U.S. President Donald Trump on "Fox and Friends" this morning, seeming to acknowledge that his lawyer Michael Cohen did represent him in making a payment to porn-star Stormy Daniels. In the past, of course, he has denied knowing anything about the payment. And then, on the home front, the President got a bit flustered when he was asked what should have been frankly an easy one: what he got his wife for his birthday.

SOUNDCLIP

DT: Well, good morning, and I picked a very, very special day because it's Melania’s birthday. And so I said let's do it on Melania’s birthday, so happy birthday to Melania.

HOST: All right. And hopefully there'll be visits in between. But have you decided on, or do you want to tell us what you got her?

DT: Well, I better not get into that because I may get in trouble. Maybe I didn't get her so much. I’ll tell you what, she has done…. I got her a beautiful card. You know I'm very busy to be running out looking for presents, OK? But I got a beautiful card and some beautiful flowers. And she did a fantastic job with France. I’ll tell you what the people of France were spellbound by what happened with their great president who just left.

JD: Nothing wrong with a card, I guess. Donald Trump on “Fox and Friends” this morning.

[Music: Synth]

Penis-scrotum transplant

Guest: Gerald Brandacher

JD: It was a very delicate operation. Last month, surgeons at Johns Hopkins Hospital accomplished a medical first — when they successfully performed the full transplant of a penis, scrotum, and part of the abdominal wall. The transplant recipient has chosen to remain anonymous. Dr. Gerald Brandacher was one of the lead surgeons. We reached Dr. Brandacher in Baltimore.

CO: Dr. Brandacher, we know that the man who received this transplant does not want to be identified. But can you tell us anything about him?

GERALD BRANDACHER: Yes, so this is a young soldier who sustained extensive injuries to his genital region, as well to his lower extremities in Afghanistan. And this resulted in a massive tissue defect that included the entire penis, the scrotum, and large parts of the abdominal wall that could not be reconstructed with any conventional reconstructive techniques.

CO: How difficult is it to recover from that? What can the man who received this transplant what kind of function will he have now?

GB: So based on the research that we have done, as well as from experience from previous transplants, we expect this patient to regain full function with regards to both urinary function, meaning being able to void his bladder standing upright — as well as to regain sexual function with regards to being able to have an erection, and have intercourse.

CO: So he will have sensations?

GB: Yes.

CO: But when you say he's able to have intercourse, will he be able to produce? Can he father a child?

GB: No, this is something that is considered not excepted for various different ethical reasons because then the germ line of the donor would be transplanted, and we would transplant actually the genetic background from the donor for every child that would result.

CO: Can you tell us about the donor?

GB: Due to confidentiality reasons, I can actually not tell you anything about the donor.

CO: But this was somebody that, obviously, the family is aware that this transplant happened. Because we know that other organs are included. We can make that I wish before we die, but what about something like this? Is this something that someone can actually say yes, when I die, I would like to donate all parts of my body?

GB: So this right now is a very special consent part and process that is not included in the traditional consenting to be an organ donor. So this would not be a driver's license donation. The organ procurement organization, the coordinators, approached the individual donor family, and ask for the specific gift.

CO: Can you tell us what motivated the donor family to do that?

GB: So as with most donor families, they are motivated to turn this loss into something that benefits others, and they've decided that their loved one will be a multi-organ donor. And for this particular unique ask, I think one of the motivating factor was also that we have shared the military background and the type of injury from our recipient with the donor family. And also, in their family, they have a military background. This was something that they immediately felt something is right, and should be done. And therefore, they decided to agree to this donation.

CO: Now, we know from talking and hearing from people who have had hand transplants they often talk about how big an adjustment that is that something so personal as a hand — someone else's hand — is on the end of your arm. What kind of mental adjustment do you have to make when you have somebody else's genitals?

GB: Well, this is a very important point that you bring up. And I think it's actually important also to state that from the world experience that we have now with extremity transplants, and with face transplants, and other type of reconstructive transplants. That the patient that has been screened and deemed eligible for this type of transplants all immediately referred to these type of transplants of new body parts as their own. I've seen many of those over the years. And I was always struck that never a patient actually refers to the transplant as a graft. They always consider these are my new hands. This is my new face. And it was the same in this case that the patient immediately took ownership, and considered to be whole again. That was actually his first reaction: that he's whole again.

CO: And so the adjustment to having something as intimate as somebody else's penis, he felt that was his. Now he felt whole?

GB: Yes. I think and I think that that part of restoring wholeness and body integrity is something that is probably hard to understand for someone who has never missed the body part. But this is something that all these patients immediately actually take on their own.

CO: It's extraordinary that you have successfully done this procedure. Where do you see this going? What can you now perhaps accomplish? I mean I’m thinking about even gender reassignment surgery.

GB: Well, from a technical perspective, there is no limitations in transplant anymore. We could literally replace any body part or any organs that you can think of. I think at this point for a young field such as reconstructive transplantation, it is important to choose the right recipients, and to show that this is a worthwhile endeavor. That the risk/benefit equation is worthwhile to move forward, and to have patients that show the best outcome, and I think we have spent so in extremity transplants, and face transplants, and, hopefully, now also in this new type of transplant with penile transplants. Where he can show that for us, this is the only way actually at the moment to replace like with like, and to restore both form and function. I think once we have established this, the field will go on, and, hopefully, broaden, and become more standard of care in the future for patients who literally don't have any other option by means of conventional reconstruction.

CO: Extraordinary. Dr. Brandacher, thank you for telling us about this.

GB: Absolutely, my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

JD: Dr. Gerald Brandacher is the scientific director of the reconstructive transplantation program at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. We reached him in Baltimore. And if you would like more information on this, it's there on our website.

[Music: Electronica]

NL bullying

JD: Until today, Eddie Joyce was a Liberal member of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, he's an independent, and not by choice. This afternoon, Mr. Joyce was removed from the Liberal caucus, in response to unspecific allegations of workplace bullying from a fellow MHA. Before he left caucus, he tried to explain himself to CBC's Anthony Germain. Here is part of that exchange.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTHONY GERMAIN: Are you a bully?

EDDIE JOYCE: Well, here here's what I say, and I seen the CBC report about people reprisals. Here's my ask the media to do: if I’m a bully, go as Kevin Parsons — MHA — how many times he was in my office? Up three weeks ago, he was in my office calling mayors, working out stuff he needs for capital works. Go ask Kevin Parsons how many summer jobs I got his students.

AG: But what does that have to do with me asking you if you're a bully?

EJ: But how can you be a bully if you’re dealing with everybody in the House Assembly?

AG: Well, you can be a bully by yelling at people, by insulting people, by blocking doorways. There are always to be a bully that aren't sexual.

EJ: But how am I being a bully? That’s what I’m saying. This is the point on the CBC part. Let me finish question, please. Go ask Kevin Parsons how many summer jobs I got his students. If someone scared that I'm the bully, go ask Tracy Perry. March 4^th I helped Tracy Perry with a seat down in the district. She sent me thank you ever so much with a smiley face. So that’s not bullying.

AG: But I don’t understand? You seem to be arguing so long as you dole out money to MHAs, you're not a bully.

EJ: It’s not loaning of money — like you’re trying to make this a story when it is not a story.

AG: Just one quick last one: to your knowledge, other than Tracy Perry, and Ms. Gambin-Walsh, have other female MHAs made complaints about you being bully or harassing them in a non-sexual way?

EJ: No, not to my knowledge.

AG: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Joyce.

JD: That was Newfoundland and Labrador MHA Eddie Joyce speaking to the CBC’s Anthony Germain. Mr. Joyce was removed from the Liberal caucus today after accusations of bullying. The specific allegations have not been released.

[Music: World music]

Frida Kahlo Barbie

JD: There it is in "Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird". There it is in "Self-Portrait with Braid", in "Self-Portrait with Curly Hair", in "Self-Portrait with Loose Hair", and "Self-Portrait with Cropped Hair", it's there: Frida Kahlo's monobrow. In dozens of astonishing paintings of herself, Ms. Kahlo has different hairstyles, different dresses, there are different backgrounds. But the monobrow never changed. It's by no means the most interesting thing about those powerful self-portraits of the powerful feminist, artist and activist. But it's impossible to miss. Except, somehow, Mattel did. Recently, the company issued a number of "Role Model Barbies" — Barbie-doll-style versions of great women. And Barbie Frida Kahlo's hair does look like it does in "Self-Portrait in Red and Gold Dress". The doll's face somewhat resembles the most common expression in her self-portraits: an impassivity that suggests defiance. But her head sits precariously atop an unrealistically Barbie-thin neck, which is atop an unrealistically Barbie-thin body. And the face on that head has two separate, distinct eyebrows. Now, that's not why some of Ms. Kahlo's distant relatives sued the company. They sued because they say Mattel hadn't secured the rights to her image. Mattel says it has. Nevertheless, a Mexican court has now blocked sales of the Frida Kahlo Barbie in Mexico, until things are sorted out. Now, while the legal stuff is being addressed, maybe Mattel should take a second look at what its website calls a, quote, "artist, activist, and feminist icon" who "continues to be a symbol of strength, originality, and unwavering passion." And while they're raising various issues around this Barbie-fied version of Ms. Kahlo, they might want to raise eyebrow.

April 26, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode