Episodes

The Complexity of North Korea

Spend 20 minutes with Beth preparing for Tuesday's episode with some North Korean geography, history, and facts about the current state and its leader, Kim Jong-un.  Recommended Resources:  North Korea's Nuclear Program Fast Facts on North Korea  The Official Website of North Korea  Understanding Kim Jong-un Trump Inherits a Secret Cyberwar Against North Korea 

The Briefcase: Glenn Greenwald on Trump's war

Pantsuit Politics Book Club: Hillbilly Elegy

Syria: Can we achieve peace through strength?

Sarah returns to Pantsuit Politics on Tuesday's episode. For today's Briefcase, we have a special episode focused primarily on foreign policy. We're delighted to have Kerry Boyd Anderson on the podcast. Kerry is a political risk consultant with more than 14 years experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risks. She started her own company a year ago and is also a contributor to Gulf News in Dubai. She was previously a Deputy Director for Advisory services with Oxford Analytica.  Kerry joins Beth for a discussion of the humanitarian, military, and political crisis unfolding in Syria.  Then Dante, our Chief Creative Officer, takes a spin in Sarah's chair to discuss the news of the week and listener feedback. Beth and Dante talk about President Trump's comments throughout the week, Ambassador Nikki Haley's comments at the United Nations, and the White House's potentially shifting position on Syria. We then discuss North Korea's test missiles and Rex Tillerson's strange response.   Finally, we turn to the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch and discuss the Democratic and Republican positions with respect to the Supreme Court.  We received great feedback this week and will save most of it for next week, but we had to address Sandy's question:  I have yet to have an experience with regulations that was not literally "job creating" for me and/or rigor/responsibility-instigating.  I cannot really trace back an example where a regulation has forced a company to make significant cuts or go under.  (I do, however, know of companies in the Chemical Engineering realm have utilized tax breaks intended for cleaner energy...but only did so in loop-hole/ethically questionable way...but maybe that's a different topic).  Perhaps if I played out a scenario where the presence of regulations did make companies paralyzed (e.g. God forbid, if Honda leaked tons of antifreeze into storm water, knew about it, didn't report it ever, and then somehow owed a sum that would take them out), it feels like at that point such irresponsibility would have to be quite consequential.   And I guess that's my question:  Why does this "anti-regulation" rhetoric exist?  Does it have any grounds?  Is it just a rallying cry?  Some attempt to beef up some stocks or something?   Once I stopped and thought about it in my own life experiences and realized it didn't match my life experiences, I got confused & concerned. Thoughts? Love you ladies! As always, we so appreciate the support of our listeners! 

We are delighted to be jointly hosting a discussion of global citizenship with Tsh Oxenreider, founder of The Art of Simple, The Simple Show, and author of Organized Simplicity: The Clutter-Free Approach to Intentional Living, Notes from a Blue Bike: The Art of Living Intentionally in a Chaotic World, and At Home in the World: Reflections on Belonging While Wandering the Globe.  With Tsh, we discuss what we've learned about podcasting, news, raising children who care about the world around them. We talk about how the world is actually getting better all the time, and we discuss Tsh's travels with her husband and three children. 

The Briefcase: Ivanka's new role and Pence's marriage

We're talking about the FISA process, Retired General Michael Flynn, and the failure of the American Health Care Act. The Pearls We comfort ourselves about our miserable election predictions by noting that we predicted that the American Health Care Act would not make it through the House of Representatives. And it didn't. Big winners: the American people for not being subjected to a half-baked, not-really-about-health-care-health-care-bill. Big losers: Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, Republicans generally. Sadly, we have two incidents of violence to acknowledge. A British man, Khalid Masood, rammed his vehicle into a crowd at Westminster Bridge in London after stabbing a police officer. His connections to Saudi Arabia have police still investigating his possible motives. On Sunday morning, a dispute escalated into a shooting in a Cincinnati, Ohio, night club, leaving one person dead and 15 injured. Our prayers are with everyone impacted in London and Cincinnati. For our compliments to the other party, Sarah tipped her hat to the Freedom Caucus for standing their ground in opposition to the AHCA. Beth complimented the Democratic lawmakers behind the Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act (the MAR-A-LAGO Act), which would require the White House to publish its visitor logs and mandate the release of visitor logs when the President conducts business...elsewhere. The Suit We start with a mini-primer on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), which was enacted in 1978 to protect Americans’ privacy in the midst of counter-terrorism efforts. A law enforcement training white paper helped us significantly in understanding key provisions of FISA. FISA was enacted to limit the presidents' power and to create a judicially-manageable standard for issuing warrants in national security investigations. The key provisions of FISA were: Non-criminal electronic surveillance can only occur for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence Foreign powers and agents of foreign powers could be targeted for electronic surveillance (foreign powers and agents of foreign powers are defined in the statute—explicitly says “non US persons” — US persons are citizens, legal permanent residents, US corporations, unincorporated associates with a substantial number of members who are citizens or lawful permanent residents) The government needs probable cause to conduct surveillance (and set a probable cause standard) Established foreign intelligence surveillance courts (FISC) at the district and appellate levels to review applications for warrants under the act The government can only conduct electronic surveillance in the US for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence or foreign counterintelligence pursuant to a warrant issued by a FISC or in an emergency with approval from the attorney general provided that a warrant is sought within 24 hours In 1995, FISA was expanded to include physical searches (which meant a recognition that the president’s power to order physical searches in the interest of nat security is limited) In 1998, provisions were added on pen registers and trap and trace - includes phone calls, email, and all electronic forms of communication. These provisions specifically prohibit investigation of US persons for activities protected by the 1st Amendment. Often the collection of information under FISA leads to collection of evidence of a domestic crime (not the intention of the surveillance). The FBI is obligated by the statute and executive order to pass that evidence the appropriate law enforcement agency. But, there have been many challenges to evidence collected under FISA in criminal cases because of 4th and 5th Amendment concerns. These challenges led to the establishment of the “primary purpose” test and “the wall” — the intelligence community became very careful about ensuring that applications for FISA warrants demonstrated that the primar

We began by encouraging everyone to share the #trypod hashtag. The idea is to introduce someone who doesn’t listen to podcasts to the medium. Show them how to do it and obviously subscribe them to Pantsuit Politics! We began by discussing FBI Director James Comey's testimony before Congress confirming that the FBI is investigation whether or not President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. We also discussed the AP's revelation that Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, was paid millions by a Putin ally. Karen on Twitter had a great read of the situation: Illegality all around T. He was likely influenced by ppl with specific agendas tailored to appeal to his world view and vanity and so he is influenced. Also think he probably willfully "ignorant" of crimes around him but I bet we will never be able to pin any intentional criminal activity on him. We then shared Beth's interview with Katherine Gypson, reporter for Voice of America, who was in the room for both Comey's testimony and Representative Devin Nunnes's press conference. We discussed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearings and growing concerns about his views on torture and statements about women at law firms. We also discussed the Democratic party's plans to filibuster his confirmation. We moved on to talk about two abortion laws that recently passed in Texas and several pieces of feedback we've gotten related to abortion. We talked about the proposed Reins Act and whether or not the Congress really needs approval over so much regulation. We wrapped up with feedback from Shannon on the difference between how we discuss terrorism when the terrorist is white.

In the Pearls, we discussed President Trump's proposed budget. The big winners under this budget were the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as Veteran's Affairs. The biggest loser was the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as nineteen other agencies that Trump proposed elimination. Beth argued that this budget shows diplomacy is not a priority for President Trump as it also includes cuts to the State Department and reductions in foreign aid. Inexplicably, healthcare companies such as drug makers and device makers will pay more than twice as much in 2018 to have their medical products reviewed for approval by the Food and Drug Administration under the proposed budget. The proposal budgets over $2 billion in fees to be collected from industry, twice as much in 2017. This doesn't seem to fit the increasingly loud narrative of reducing health care costs. We then moved on to compliment the other side. Sarah had big praise two Texas Congressmen who hit the road for a bipartisan road trip. Beth praised Representative Rodney Moore for his eloquent advocacy for charter schools. In the Suit, we discussed the fiery response on social media to Sarah's photo of a local church bulletin board featuring the viral photo of Omran Daqneesh, a 5-year-old Syrian child. The caption seems to imply all the little boy needs is Christianity in his life and this position left many of you angry and seemed to reflect a growing disenchantment with religion itself. We discussed our own frustrations and history with organized religion and what those ideas can (and cannot) mean when it comes to politics. Do Americans suffer from an empathy deficit? What does it mean to be empathetic? Sarah had high praise for Krista Tippet's expanded audio edition of Becoming Wise, which addresses the interplay between spirituality, religion, and politics incredibly well. Beth discussed a wonderful Washington Post article that illustrated the difference in approach between empathy and entitlement in immigrants versus natural-born citizens. She also shared Anne Lamott's recent Facebook reflection. As well as one of her favorite lines from The Invitation by Oriah Mountain dreamer which states simply, "I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it, or fade it, or fix it." We ended the show in The Heels by lightening things up a bit with talk of real estate and Designated Survivor.

This week, Americans are squarely confronting the rights and responsibilities of our government, our citizens, and our fellow humans. With the travel ban, news from the intelligence community, and the AHCA, we’re asking what we exactly we do and do not owe to someone else’s babies. The Travel Ban A federal district judge in Hawaii enjoined enforcement of President Trump's revised executive order on immigration. We recap the decision: The plaintiffs were seeking a nationwide temporary restraining order. They had to establish Standing (similar to state of Washington in 9th Circuit decision + tourism; the Court also held that an individual plaintiff had standing to challenge the order) Strong likelihood of success on the merits of the Establishment Clause claims The Court extensively quoted statements from then-candidate Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Stephen Miller regarding the intention of the executive order. "The Government has established a disfavored religion." The Court also found that the executive order does not achieve its stated national security objectives because citizenship, according to the DHS, is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats. Under the Lemon test, the Court held that the government could not show that the order has a primarily secular purpose. The Court also rejected the Government's claim that the executive order does not discriminate against Muslims because it does not apply to all countries with majority-Muslim populations, saying, “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise." The Court held that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order. Sarah fully agrees with the Court's analysis. Beth, while taking serious issue with the executive order, thinks the Court's analysis, particularly on standing, is very thin and problematic. Other News We discuss the Justice Department's indictment of two Russian spies and two criminal hackers in connection with the breach of 500 million Yahoo accounts in 2014, and we wonder how the administration will respond. Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner announced this week that there is no indication that the government surveilled Trump Tower before the election. Sean Spicer then told the press that a British intelligence agency, GCHQ, actually did the spying. GCHQ responded by saying that Spicer's allegations are "utterly ridiculous." We applaud the Netherlands for Geert Wilders' defeat, and we lament remarks from Congressman Steve King. Friday Feedback We briefly discuss the CBO report on the American Health Care Act and consider feedback from listeners Lauren and Susan. From Lauren: speaking as someone who has had fibromyalgia for nine years those ads have actually brought a new awareness to the disease. 9 years ago when I was 15 and diagnosed and would people I that I had been diagnosed they would say "wait what is that I don't know what that is." Or even "well that sounds fake you must just want special treatment and the attention." But now they say "oh yeah the one with the drug ad on TV" and it gives them a point of reference to understand what the disease is better than they did before. I would like to know who is actually thinking about the young and sick because there are a lot of us? I feel like I and people like me have been completely forgotten in this discussion and it is one that will greatly affect my life in far more ways than it will affect my peers as they are young and healthy. From Susan: As a physician I have been regularly confronted with all the ways the current insurance structure (with or without the ACA) fails patients (and makes their doctors crazy talking to insurance companies to get coverage for standard of care items). I have always been anti-single-payer but have started to feel

Republicans have been saying "repeal and replace" for seven years. Today, we're talking about their proposal, the American Health Care Act, to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  The Pearls (our quick discussions at important  stories of the week)  Attorney General Jeff Sessions requested the resignation of 46 United States Attorneys this week. Though it is not unprecedented for new administrations to transition personnel in the Department of Justice, the Trump administration's approach seemed unnecessarily graceless. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, was especially taken aback by the Trump administration's move, refused to resign, and was ultimately fired. We also discussed two thought-provoking pieces on how we take in information. A recent study concluded that Breitbart dominated right-wing media during the 2016 election, creating an ecosystem of thought that altered the broader media agenda. We discuss our thoughts on Breitbart as a nationalist and populist outlet, rather than a conservative one, and on what we see as asymmetric polarization. In connection with exiting the echo chamber, Sarah recommended PolitEcho and Escape Your Bubble.  The second piece is a fascinating experiment in gender roles. An NYU professor recreated parts of the debates between Trump and Clinton using a woman actor to play Trump and a male actor to play Clinton. Aside from the gender swap, the language, gestures, and tones of voice exactly mimicked Trump and Clinton during the debates. The results surprised the NYU audiences, and we were surprised by our reactions. As always, we took a moment to compliment the other party. Beth complimented Congresswoman Debbie Dingell for her measured comments on health care reform. Sarah complimented Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner for his willingness to hold town halls and address constituent concerns.  The Suit (our closer look at a single topic):  Following the November 2016 elections, Beth said that Republicans would have to step up and actually govern now because having an undivided government means there are no excuses. The American Health Care Act is Republicans' first real shot at actually governing, and we're not impressed.  First, we discuss the strategy of beginning the legislative agenda with health care when immigration or tax reform seem like more logical choices that would set the stage for health care reform. We also discuss the rushed, secretive process to create the bill and the hypocrisy in pushing the bill through the committee process without a CBO score. Republicans are also failing to build bipartisan consensus and instead trying to push the bill through with a simple majority in the Senate through the budget reconciliation process. As a result, House Speaker Paul Ryan says the bill is the first of three phases, and the bill can deal only with matters related to the budget under the Byrd Rule.  The ACHA replaces the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act with a 30% penalty for failing to maintain continuous coverage. We think the effectiveness of this provision is dubious at best.  Additionally, the ACHA creates a tax credit system based on age for purchasing insurance, and it takes dramatic steps to change the Medicaid system.  We think the bill largely helps the upper middle class and the wealthy through expanding the use of health savings accounts and repealing a number of taxes, such as the net investment tax, that the ACA imposed.  Fundamentally, the ACHA does not tackle the hardest questions about health insurance -- namely, how to lower the cost of health care, how to provide coverage for working adults who cannot afford health insurance, and how to provide affordable care to the sickest Americans. Beth feels strongly that employer-sponsored health care contributes to these problems and that Republicans should work to transition health care away from employer-sponsored plans to make lasting and sustainable progress. She re

http://traffic.libsyn.com/pantsuitpolitics/Primer_MP3.mp3

In case you missed it, here's our May 5, 2016 primer on ACA. It might be a good review before Tuesday's episode on Republican plans to repeal and replace ACA.